-^'^ 

(6 

1 

*^ 

Ol 

1 

•^ 

"3 

! 

«f 

"a. 

0) 

1  1 

J5 

.5  ' 

15 

CL 

^           ^ 

^ 

^ 

> 

> 

c 
td) 

<: 

0) 

^" 

O 

3 

1 

<>            S 

E 

^ 

CO 

1 

^ 

-o 

<2> 

% 

c 

0) 

S 

^ 

f/) 

0) 

^ 

'^ 

C^ 

s 

sc^S 

/d?^ 

-OJ- 

-^ 

DISCOURSES 


BAPTISM 


CLOSE  COMMUNION 


^ 


BY  DAVID  LrOGDEN, 

PASTOR  OP  THE  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH  IN  SOUTHINGTON. 


NEW  HAVEN: 

PRINTED   BY   HEZEKIAH   HOWE    &    CO. 


1834. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1834,  by 

David  L.  Ogden, 
in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut 


^^. 


%  \ 


PREFACE 


The  following  discourses  were  delivered  to 
the  author's  own  people.  They  are,  with  a  few 
alterations,  now  published  at  their  request,  and 
particularly  for  their  use.  They  were  original- 
ly divided  into  shorter  portions  for  the  conven- 
ience of  delivery ;  but  that  division  is  not  here 
retained.  After  a  powerful  revival  in  which 
upwards  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  were  added  to 
the  church  and  many  more  about  to  be  added, 
it  seemed  proper  to  enter  upon  a  course  of  in- 
struction which  should  involve  the  points  here 
discussed.  The  author  had  not  the  intention  of 
attacking  any  denomination  of  christians,  or  of 
defending  the  one  to  which  he  has  the  honor  and 
the  happiness  to  belong;  but  of  delivering  in  its 
place  the  truth  of  Christ  to  his  own  people,  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  their  minds  a  right  direc- 
tion, irrespective  of  the  feelings  or  views  of  oth- 
ers. In  the  pulpit  he  has  nothing  to  do  with 
other  denominations,  but  only  to  make  known 
the  gospel  of  Christ  according  to  the  best  under- 
standing he  can  get  of  it  from  the  scriptures. 


4  PREFACE. 

He  does  not  ask  the  question  therefore  whether 
others  agree  or  disagree ;  whether  they  are  pleas- 
ed or  displeased.  To  his  own  Master  he  stands 
or  falls.  What  he  says  he  sincerely  believes. 
And  though  he  would  be  happy  to  persuade 
those  who  differ  from  him  to  believe  in  like  man- 
ner; yet  this  is  not  his  object  so  much  as  the 
instruction  which  he  feels  bound  to  give  to  those 
who  are  committed  to  his  charge.  He  is  not 
unacquainted  with  the  power  of  prejudice,  and 
the  entire  fruitlessness  of  endeavoring  to  con- 
vince a  man  who  holds  himself  armed  in  self- 
defence,  or  committed  to  an  opposite  side. 
He  would  prosecute  his  inquiries  with  the  ut- 
most good-will  to  all  men,  and  with  the  sincere 
desire  that  both  his  people  and  himself  may 
come  to  such  conclusions  as  shall  be  pleasing 
in  the  sight  of  God.  With  these  things  honest- 
ly premised,  if  any  shall  impute  wrong  mo- 
tives to  him,  or  be  displeased  at  the  plain  truth 
which  he  brings  out,  the  fault  will  be  another's, 
not  his. 

The  above  remarks  in  substance,  were  made 
to  the  people  on  the  delivery  of  the  discourses. 
The  same  the  author  would  now  say  to  such  as 
shall  give  these  pages  a  perusal.  He  seeks  no 
controversy.     He  makes  no  demands  but  those 


PREFACE.  5 

of  candor  and  a  christian  spirit.  He  has  not 
sought  novelty.  He  has  given  his  own  thoughts 
freely,  without  carefulness  to  distinguish  those 
obtained  by  observation  from  those  obtained  by 
reading.  His  great  aim  has  been  simplicity. 
He  wished  to  reduce  the  subject  to  the  level  of 
every  candid  inquirer,  however  illiterate,  if  he 
will  only  read  the  Bible  with  the  spirit  of  a  little 
child,  willing  to  learn  and  willing  to  do  the  will 
of  God. 


1* 


CONTENTS. 

■/ 

Discourse    I.  The  Mode  of  Baptism, 9 

Discourse  II.  Close  Communiori, 47 

Discourse  III.  Infant  Baptism, 81 

Discourse  IV.  The  same  subject  continued, . .  .  .  .118 

Discourse  V.  Utility  and  practical  importance  of 

Infant  Baptism, 133 


DISCOUR>SE  I. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 


Acts  i.  5. 

"  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shallbe  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence." 

These  are  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
as  recorded  by  Luke  in  his  introduction  to  one 
of  the  most  interesting  histories  that  the  world 
affords.  They  describe  in  the  plainest  manner 
what  the  mind  of  Christ  is  in  regard  to  the  mode 
of  baptism.  It  is  such  a  mode  in  regard  to  wa- 
ter as  the  baptism  here  promised  is  in  regard  to 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  easy  then  to  determine 
the  fact  by  referring  to  the  next  chapter,  where 
this  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  is  particularly 
recorded.  It  consisted  not  in  dipping  or  im- 
mersion, but  in  pouring  out.  After  the  baptism 
had  taken  place,  Peter  explains  it  by  saying, 
"  This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet 
Joel ;  and  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
saith  God,  I  willpoM?'  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all 
flesh."  This  baptism  is  beyond  all  question  a 
different  mode  from  immersion.  The  disciples 
were  not  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  we 
read,  "There  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of 
a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting."     The  sound,  not  the 


10  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Holy  Ghost,  filled  the  house.  You  know  how 
sound  fills  a  house.  It  is  nothing  more  than  its 
being  heard  all  over  the  house.  And  moreover, 
the  apostle  expressly  says,  on  summing  up  the 
evidence  which  he  had  been  stating  concerning 
the  wonderful  facts  that  had  occurred,  '  There- 
fore being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  ye 
now  see  and  hear."  This  is  the  way  then  that 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  performed ; 
that  is,  it  was  poured  out — it  was  shed  forth. 
On  the  supposition  that  the  word  baptize  means 
to  immerse,  our  Saviour  would  be  made  to  say, 
John  truly  immersed  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
immersed  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  then  the 
next  chapter  would  flatly  contradict  the  prom- 
ise, and  show  that  instead  of  being  immersed, 
the  influence  spoken  of  was  poured  out  or  shed 
forth  upon  them. 

This  you  see  is  a  plain  scripture  argument, 
that  baptism  in  the  sense  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  requires  it,  is  not  immersion  ;  for  he 
gives  the  definition  of  the  word  by  his  own  acts. 
This  argument,  however,  does  not  imply  that 
immersion  will  not  answer  the  end  of  baptism. 
It  implies  only  that  baptism  by  a  small  quantity 
of  water  is  the  original,  scriptural  mode,  and 
that  baptism  by  immersion  is  an  unnecessary 
addition.  The  latter  is  not  so  appropriate  as 
the  former.  If  then  baptism  is  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  a  given  subject  but  once  in  his  life,  it  is 
plain  that  to  be  baptized  by  immersion,  or  any 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  11 

Other  way,  after  one  has  been  baptized  by- 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  is  to  submit  to  a  mere 
nullity  to  say  the  least,  and  probably  a  sin. 

These  observations  being  before  you  in  ref- 
erence to  our  text,  I  propose  now  to  examine 
in  a  series  of  discourses,  the  mode  of  baptism, 
the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  close  commun- 
ion, and  whatever  may  come  up  in  this  connex- 
ion. In  doing  this  I  shall  make  it  my  endeavor 
to  avoid  all  severity  of  remark  in  regard  to  any 
other  denomination  of  Christians  ;  and  under 
the  influence  of  prayer  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
seek  after  truth.  My  object  will  be  to  lay  be- 
fore you  some  of  the  plainest  and  sincerest  con- 
victions of  my  own  mind  in  regard  to  these  sub- 
jects. Without  this  I  could  not  discharge  my 
duty  as  a  christian  minister  to  whom  so  many 
souls  are  committed.  If  there  is  any  thing  in 
the  whole  compass  of  divine  truth  on  which  my 
mind  is  made  up,  and  which  every  year  of  my 
life,  and  the  whole  drift  of  christian  experience 
confirms,  it  is  these  things  which  I  am  about  to 
present  to  your  consideration. 

Nor  are  they  so  unimportant  as  many  seem  to 
imagine.  Insisting  on  immersion  as  the  only 
valid  baptism,  and  a  denial  of  infant  baptism, 
are  errors  which  are  generally  accompanied  by 
other  errors  of  great  importance  in  christian 
practice.  Some  of  these  errors  will  appear  in 
the  progress  of  our  investigations.  Not  the 
least  of  them,  in  my  judgment,  is,  that  where 
there  are  not  counteracting  circumstances  in 
the  piety  and  intelligence  of  the  man,  he  be- 


12  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

comes  50  absorbed  in  the  defence  of  his  pecul- 
iarities, as  to  lose  the  force  of  that  enlarged 
christian  siisceptiblity  and  enterprize,  which  is 
the  glory  of  the  present  age. 

It  IS  moreover  true,  that  all  scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doc- 
trine, for  reproof,  for  instruction  in  righteous- 
ness, that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thor- 
oughly furnished  unto  all  good  works.  And 
therefore,  whatever  belongs  to  the  institutions 
of  God  should  be  set  forth  at  the  proper  time 
and  in  the  proper  place. 

On  the  mode  of  baptism  then,  let  us  examine 
first  the  baptism  of  John,  and  then  the  baptism 
of  the  apostles. 

It  is  represented  that  John  came  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Judea  preaching,  Repent  ye,  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.  And  the  num- 
bers that  went  out  are  thus  described  by  Mat- 
thew :  "  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and 
all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jor- 
dan. And  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  con- 
fessing their  sins."  iii.  5,  6.  Mark  says,  "And 
were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan." 
i.  5. 

Now  let  us  see  if  there  is  any  evidence  that 
John  immersed  a  single  individual.  It  is  said 
by  Josephus  that  there  were  from  eight  to  ten 
millions  of  inhabitants  in  these  countries.  And 
the  sacred  writer  says  that  all  of  them  were 
baptized  by  John.  It  is  probable,  though  not 
certain,  that  John  commenced  his  ministry  at 
thirty  years  of  age,  because  that  was  the  age  of 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  13 

majority  among  the  Jews.  If  so,  as  all  the  peo- 
ple, according^  to  Luke,  were  baptized  before 
Christ  was,  the  work  must  have  been  done  in 
six  months,  because  John  was  only  six  months 
older  than  Jesus.  This  time  was  insufficient  to 
baptize  any  approach  towards  all  the  people 
above  mentioned,  by  immersion,  if  John  had 
stood  in  the  water  all  the  time.  But  if  we  make 
the  largest  allowance,  suppose  two  years,  for 
John  to  baptize  previous  to  the  baptism  of  Je- 
sus, the  work  could  not  have  been  done.  I  do 
not  suppose  that  the  word  all  is  to  be  taken  in 
its  literal  sense,  for  w^e  afterwards  read  of  some 
who  had  not  been  baptized  of  John.  It  cannot 
however  signify  a  small  number.  Out  of  the 
eight  or  ten  millions,  one  million  at  least  must 
have  been  baptized,  if  the  phraseology  of  the 
evangelist  has  any  show  of  truth.  Now  if  we 
suppose  two  years  for  the  duration  of  John's 
ministry  previous  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  and 
that  he  stood  in  the  water  night  and  day  for  the 
whole  of  that  time,  and  baptized  one  in  a  min- 
ute, he  could  not  have  baptized  but  a  little  over 
a  million  of  persons.  It  needs  nothing  but  a 
simple  arithmetical  calculation  to  see  this.  You 
have  only  to  find  the  number  of  minutes  in  two 
years  ;  which  are  one  million,  fifty  one  thousand 
and  two  hundred.  But  no  one  will  pretend  that 
either  John  or  any  other  man  could  sustain  such 
a  labor  as  this  for  two  years,  without  any  sleep. 
Suppose  then  that  he  stood  in  the  water  eight 
hours  of  the  day  for  two  years,  and  baptized 
one  in  a  minute.  You  have  now  three  hundred 
2 


14  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

and  fifty  thousand  and  four  hundred  minutes  oc- 
cupied in  baptising  ;  and  consequently,  that 
number  of  baptisms  which  took  place.  This  too 
is  more  labor  than  a  man  can  sustain  ;  and  yet 
the  number  falls  very  far  short  of  the  evangel- 
ist's description.  Three  hundred  and  fifty  thou- 
sand people  does  not  approach  near  enough  to 
eight  millions  to  warrant  a  writer  to  call  it  all, 
in  any  appropriate  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  a 
plain  impossibility  then  that  John  should  have 
baptized  this  great  number  by  immersion  in  the 
short  space  of  time  that  the  New  Testament  al- 
lots to  his  ministry.  And  yet  in  some  way  he 
did  actually  baptize  a  greater  multitude  than  this. 
We  have  no  distinct  mention  how  it  was  done  ; 
but  the  circumstances  of  the  case  forbid  the  idea 
of  immersion.  If  he  took  a  bunch  of  hyssop, 
and  standing  in  the  Jordan,  sprinkled  the  water 
on  the  people  who  stood  on  the  shore  as  Moses 
did  the  blood  of  the  covenant  mentioned  Heb. 
ix.  19.  the  baptism  of  many  thousands  in  a  day 
was  practicable.  In  this  way  he  might  have 
presented  to  the  Jews  a  ritual  purification  which 
was  analogous  to  all  their  customs,  and  easily 
understood.  Jesus  was  probably  baptized  by 
pouring  water  on  his  head.  This  case  is  distin- 
guished from  all  the  rest  by  many  peculiarities. 
Had  as  much  time  been  occupied  in  all  John's 
baptisms  as  in  that,  he  could  not  have  baptized 
"  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan," 

In  the  next  place,  the  description  which  John 
himself  gives  of  his  baptism,  strongly  implies 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  15 

that  it  was  not  done  by  immersion.  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance  ;  but  he 
that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear ;  he  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
What  correspondence  is  there  between  immer- 
sion in  water,  and  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit? 
What  significancy,  on  the  supposition  of  immer- 
sion, in  John's  description  of  his  proceedings  ? 
I  indeed  dip  you  in  water,  but  he  ^h^W  pour  out 
upon  you  the  Holy  Spirit?  Does  dipping  sig- 
nify pouring  ?  Now  if  you  understand  John's 
baptism  to  be  sprinkling  or  pouring,  which,  as 
I  have  shown,  is  the  only  possible  mode  in  the 
space  of  time  which  he  occupied,  then  the  de- 
scription is  natural  and  impressive.  I  indeed 
sprinkle  or  pour  water  upon  you";  but  he  shall 
pour  upon  you  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  simi- 
lar phraseology  with  that  of  our  text,  and  de- 
mands, like  that,  the  idea  of  pouring  rather  than 
dipping.     Thus  far  I  think  is  clear. 

There  are  two  things  which  are  alleged 
against  this  view,  which,  however,  are  great- 
ly misunderstood  by  those  who  allege  them. 
One  is,  that  Christ  is  said  to  go  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water  with  John ;  and  the 
other,  that  John  is  said  to  be  baptizing  in 
Enon  near  Salim,  because  there  was  much  wa- 
ter there.  In  regard  to  the  first,  it  is  plain  that 
the  action  of  going  up  from  the  water  is  noth- 
ing more  than  ascending  the  banks  of  Jordan, 
for  that  action  took  place  after  the  baptism. 
The  Greek  word  translated  ^^wentvp^^  is  never 
used  to  designate  rising  from  under  the  water, 


16  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

but  always  signifies  to  go  up,  ascend  in  such  a 
way  as  you  go  up  a  hill,  a  tree,  an  eminence, 
,&c.  It  is  therefore  going  up  the  banks  of  the 
river,  and  not  going  up  from  under  the  water. 
There  certainly  can  be  no  proof  then  that  either 
John  or  Jesus  went  further  into  the  river  than 
up  to  their  ankles,  or  that  they  went  in  at  all 
any  further  than  for  John  to  dip  up  water  in  his 
hands. 

The  other  passage,  which  speaks  of  John's 
baptizing  where  there  was  much  water,  does 
not  say  why  the  water  was  needed.  And  it  is 
just  as  likely  to  be  needed  for  the  supply  of  the 
multitudes  of  men  and  beasts  that  were  collected 
together,  in  the  way  of  drink,  as  for  immersion. 
It  is  much  more  likely,  because  much  water  was 
not  as  necessary  for  immersion  as  for  suste- 
nance ;  it  being  sufficient  for  the  former  pur- 
pose, that  a  small  brook  should  be  scooped  out. 
But  a  single  brook  would  not  answer  the  wants 
of  the  multitude  in  the  way  of  drink.  The  prob- 
ability then  is,  that  the  much  water  is  mention- 
ed as  an  accommodation  to  the  multitude,  just 
as  it  is  for  a  Methodist  camp  meeting.  But 
would  any  one  say  in  the  latter  case  that  it  was 
for  the  purpose  of  immersion  ?  It  seems  then 
very  plain  that  John  did  not  baptize  by  immer- 
sion, because  the  time  occupied  in  his  ministry 
makes  it  an  absolute  impossibility ;  and  all  the 
references  to  his  baptism  can  be  much  more  ea- 
sily and  satisfactorily  explained  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  his  sprinkling  or  pouring,  than  on  that  of 
immersion. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  17 

After  all,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  baptism 
of  John  was  not  christian  baptism.  This  is 
clear  from  the  facts  that  it  was  not  instituted  by- 
Christ ;  that  it  was  not  administered  into  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  it  was  set  aside  by  the 
apostles.  That  it  was  not  instituted  by  Christ 
must  be  admitted  by  all,  because  it  began  before 
his  ministry,  and  during  the  existence  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation  of  the  church.  It  was  pre- 
paratory to,  not  confirmatory  of,  the  Christian 
dispensation  ;  for  John's  preaching  was,  "  Re- 
pent ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand," 
not,  already  come.  And  that  it  was  not  admin- 
istered into  the  name  of  the  Trinity  is  virtually 
declared  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Acts, 
where  it  is  said  that  certain  individuals  who  had 
been  baptized  by  John,  had  not  so  much  as  heard 
whether  there  were  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  in 
this  same  account  it  is  stated  that  they  were 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  is, 
received  christian  baptism,  of  which  they  were 
destitute  before.*     Thus  the  baptism   of  John 


*  Our  opponents  say  that  John's  baptism  is  not  set 
aside,  but  identified  with  christian  baptism  in  this  pas- 
sage. They  understand  the  fifth  verse  to  be  a  continua- 
tion of  Paul's  speech,  and  not  the  declaration  of  the  his- 
torian. On  this  supposition  it  would  be  difficult  to  see 
the  force  of  Paul's  reasoning ;  for  he  seems  to  be  ac- 
counting for  the  fact  that  these  disciples  had  not  heard 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  the  way  he  does  it,  is  on  the 
principle  that  John  baptized  with  reference  to  a  Messiah 
about  to  manifest  himself,  and  not  one  already  come. 

2* 


18  THE    MODE    or    BAPTISM. 

was  clearly  set  aside  as  not  answering  to  the 
christian  dispensation  already  commenced.  It 
is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  a  baptism  which 


But  on  the  supposition  that  he  declares  the  disciples  of 
John  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus, he  virtually  says  that  they  have  heard  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  notwithstanding  their  declarations  to  the  con- 
trary. 

1.  The  interpretation  of  our  opponents  then  puts  Paul 
in  the  attitude  of  asking  a  question  of  no  significancy 
when  he  said,  "  Unto  what  then  vrere  ye  baptized '?" 

2.  It  makes  the  fifth  verse  a  mere  tautology,  being 
nothing  but  a  repetition  of  what  was  said  in  the  fourth 
verse. 

3.  It  implies  that  John's  disciples  all  believed  in  Jesus 
as  the  Messiah ;  whereas  w^e  are  expressly  informed  that 
they  did  not — that  they  mused  in  their  hearts  whether 
John  himself  were  not  the  Christ.    Luke  iii.  15,  16. 

4.  John  baptized  with  the  indefinite  instruction  that 
they  should  believe  on  the  Messiah  who  was  about 
to  manifest  himself:  the  apostles  in  the  name  of  Je- 
sus as  the  Messiah  definitely  ascertained  and  pointed 
out.  John  could  nc^t  do  this,  because  he  did  not  himself 
know  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  till  about  the  close  of' 
his  ministry.  John  i.  31,33.  Ifihen  John  baptized  in 
any  name  at  all ;  that  is,  if  he  did  any  thing  more  than 
wash  the  people  in  token  of  the  necessity  of  in  ward  clean- 
sing; he  could  not  have  baptized  definitely  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  of  whom  he  knev^^  nothing.  Our  opponents 
then  represent  the  apostle  as  contradicting  the  known 
fact  in  the  case  ;  or  else  as  affirming  that  the  disciples  of 
John  were  virtually,  but  not  really,  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  But  if  virtual  baptism  will  answer 
the  purpose,  they  need  dispute  no  longer  about  the  mode 
of  baptism — they  will  find  no  difiiculty  in  admitting  that 
we  are  all  baptized  as  well  as  they. 

5.  If  tkey  in  v.  5.  were  baptized  by  John  only,  then 
Paul  laid  his  hands  on  all  that  were  thus  baptized,  not 
merely  on  these  twelve  here  mentioned.    For  the  word 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  19 

was  not  appointed  by  Christ ;  which  was  not  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity ;  and  which  was  ex- 
pressly set  aside  by  the  apostles,  wants  three 
essential  qualities  of  christian  baptism. 


them  in  v.  6.  must  refer  to  the  same  persons  as  the  word 
iheij  in  v.  5.  If  they  were  baptized  by  John  only,  "  upon 
thevh^'' — the  same  persons  were  Paul's  hands  laid.  What 
other  noun  can  be  supposed  to  be  represented  by  the 
pronoun  them  than  the  persons  just  mentioned,  viz.,  all 
that  were  baptized  by  John  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus ? 

6.  When  Apollos  knew  only  the  baptism  of  John, 
Aquila  and  Priscilla  "  expounded  unto  him  the  way  of 
God  more  perfectly."  Acts  xviii.  26.  Hence  it  appears 
that  the  baptism  of  John  was  not  the  way  of  God  in  such 
perfection  as  Christianity  sets  it  forth. 

7.  That  the  disciples  of  John  were  baptized  again  by 
the  apostles,  is  evident  from  the  universal  baptism  of  the 
three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  It  is  incredible 
that  John  should  have  baptized  "  Jerusalem  and  all  Ju- 
dea  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,"  and  yet  so 
large  a  number  as  three  thousand  be  found  at  a  Jewish 
festival,  none  of  whom  had  been  baptized  by  him. 

For  all  these  reasons  then  I  cannot  accede  to  the  in- 
terpretation which  our  opponents  adopt  of  the  passage 
in  question.  Indeed,  it  appears  to  me  so  contrary  to 
the  obvious  meaning,  so  far  fetched,  so  at  variance  with 
the  other  representations  of  scripture,  that  I  cannot  but 
think  that  no  man  can  propose  it  without  a  system  in  his 
eye  which  he  is  determined  to  support.  The  simple  in- 
terpreter of  the  sacred  volume,  whose  only  business  it  is  to 
know  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  would  hardly  do  so. 
The  fifth  verse  then  is  plainly  the  declaration  of  the  his- 
torian ,  and  not  of  Paul.  It  means  that  when  these  disci- 
ples heard  the  words  of  Paul  recorded  in  the  fourth 
verse,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Je- 
sus. That  this  expression  is  only  an  abbreviation  for 
the  customary  formula  of  Christian  baptism,  see  Acts 
viii.  IG.,  X.  48.,  Rom.  vi.  3.  Gal.  iii.  27. 


«U  THE    MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 

You  see  then,  my  brethren,  what  becomes  of 
the  notion  that  going  down  into  the  water  for 
baptism  is  following  Christ.  Besides  the  evi- 
dence that  he  was  not  immersed,  Christ  never 
received  christian  baptism.  It  would  have  been 
manifestly  improper,  had  he  received  it.  It 
would  have  had  no  significancy.  What  has  the 
holy  Jesus  to  do  with  a  rite  which  is  intended 
to  hold  forth  the  necessity  of  inward  purification 
on  the  part  of  the  receiver  ?  "What  has  the  Sa- 
viour to  do  with  a  rite  which  signifies  that  the 
person  receiving  it,  if  an  adult,  has  faith  in  him? 
Could  Christ  believe  in  himself?  Did  Christ 
repent  ?  Was  he  born  again  ?  If  you  follow 
Christ  in  his  baptism,  you  must  go  without  re- 
pentance, without  faith,  without  being  born 
again,  without  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Is  this  chris- 
tian baptism  ? 

Christ  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in 
his  mouth.  Did  he  then  receive  a  rite  which 
signified  that  he  needed  purification  from  sin  ? 
Christ  was  not  baptized  into  the  name  of  the 
Trinity.  Did  he  then  receive  christian  baptism  ? 
Christ  did  not  repent,  did  not  believe,  was  not 
born  again.  Did  he  then  receive  a  rite  which 
signified  that  this  change  had  taken  place,  or 
ought  to  take  place  ?  Christ  was  baptized  at 
thirty  years  of  age.  Did  he  then  receive  a  rite 
which  has  no  respect  to  age,  but  which  ought  to 
be  received  as  early  at  least  as  a  man  is  capable 
of  serving  God  ?  Christ  was  not  baptized  till 
all  the  people  had  been  baptized,  thus  signifying 


THE    MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  21 

thai  all  the  people  should  be  ceremonially  clean- 
sed before  he  made  his  appearance  as  the  Mes- 
^  siah.  Is  such  delay  proper  in  christian  bap- 
tism ?  Would  such  an  example  be  a  good  one  ? 
Whatever  then  was  the  design  of  Christ's  bap- 
tism, it  is  clear  that  it  was  never  intended  as  an 
example  for  his  followers.  If  you  follow  Christ 
in  his  baptism  you  must  wait  till  you  are  thirty 
years  old ;  and  if  you  have  passed  that  period 
it  is  too  late.  You  cannot  be  baptized.  Among 
all  the  exhortations  of  the  apostles  you  cannot 
find  one  which  says  you  must  follow  Christ  in 
his  baptism.  This  is  quite  a  modern  doctrine. 
There  is  no  more  reason  for  following  him  in 
that  than  in  the  subsequent  particulars,  going 
immediately  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted 
of  the  devil,  fasting  forty  days  and  forty  nights, 
&c.  All  these  things  were  probably  the  quali- 
fications for  his  office  as  the  great  High  Priest 
of  his  people.  As  he  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judah 
the  priests  at  the  temple  had  no  authority  to  in- 
duct him  into  ofiice.  And  yet  to  fulfill  all  right- 
eousness, to  comply  with  all  the  external  ap- 
pointments of  God  in  regard  to  the  priest's  of- 
fice, it  was  proper  that  he  should  be  set  apart 
according  to  the  usages  of  the  church.  Hence, 
if  John  poured  water  on  his  head,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  descended  upon  him,  he  received  the 
proper  signs  of  his  official  character.  The 
High  Priest  was  washed  with  pure  water  and 
anointed  with  the  oil  of  the  tabernacle  as  the 
external  qualifications  for  his  office.  So  Christ 
being  arrived  at  the  proper  age,  and  being  desi- 


22  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

rous  of  fulfilling  all  righteousness,  was  washed 
with  water,  and  anointed  not  with  the  sign  but 
with  the  thing  signified,  the  Holy  Ghost.*  Thus 
it  appeared  that  he  was  the  Anointed  of  the 
Lord,  that  is  the  Messiah.  Thus  it  appeared 
that  the  Spirit  was  not  given  to  him  as  to  other 
High  Priests  by  measure,  but  that  he  was  filled 
with  the  Spirit.  Thus  Christ  the  great  High 
Priest  of  our  profession,  as  the  apostle  calls 
him,  was  inducted  into  his  office  ;  and  therefore 
from  that  time  and  not  before,  he  went  forward 
to  execute  that  office.  He  immediately  went 
into  the  wilderness  and  suffered  temptation, 
that  he  might  be  qualified  by  experience  "  to 
succor  them  that  are  tempted,  having  been  temp- 
ted in  all  points  like  as  we  are,  though  without 
sin."  He  went  forward  and  preached,  and  did 
a  thousand  things  which  testified  of  his  charac- 
ter, and  then  offered  up  the  great  sacrifice  of 
himself  as  the  crowning  act  of  his  priestly  of- 
fice on  earth.  Hence  the  evangelist,  when  he 
speaks  of  the  ministry  of  Christ  as  the  sub- 
ject of  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  apostles,  de- 
scribes it  thus  :  "  Beginning  from  the  baptism 
of  John,  unto  that  same  day  he  was  taken  up 
from  us."  Acts  i.  22.  Here  you  see  the  be- 
ginning of  Christ's  official  character  was  at  the 
baptism  of  John. 

Christ's  baptism  then  was  wholly  peculiar. 
It  was  accompanied  by  circumstances  which  no 
other  baptism  ever  had.     The  heavens  were 

*  See  Acts  x.  38. 


THE   MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  23 

Opened  and  the  Spirit  of  God  descended  like  a 
dove  and  lighted  upon  him  ;  and  a  voice  from 
heaven  was  heard,  saying  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased.  Was  this  a 
common  baptism  ?  Was  it  an  example  for  poor, 
unworthy  sinners  to  follow  ?  If  it  were  not  said 
to  be  such  an  example  by  honest,  well-meaning 
men,  I  should  call  such  a  doctrine  the  height  of 
profaneness.  To  us,  my  brethren,  belongs  the 
baptism  of  sinners,  not  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel.  Let  us  follow  what  he  appoint- 
ed for  us,  not  what  he  appropriated  to  himself, 
and  marked  by  such  peculiar  circumstances  as 
to  set  it  apart  for  ever  as  a  peculiar  act. 

Having  shown  that  John's  baptism  was  not 
immersion,  and  not  christian  baptism;  and  that 
the  baptism  of  Christ  included  in  it,  was  of  too 
high,  peculiar  and  holy  a  character  for  us  sin- 
ners to  pretend  to ;  I  proceed  now  to  show,  that 
the  baptism  which  the  apostles  administered 
was  not  performed  by  immersion. 

I  shall  examine  four  cases,  the  three  thousand 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  case  of  Paul,  that 
of  the  Phillipian  jailor  and  that  of  the  Ethiopi- 
an eunuch.  If  it  appears  that  these  were  not 
performed  by  immersion,  it  will  not  be  supposed 
that  any  were. 

1.  The  three  thousand. — On  this  point  I  will 
quote  from  Prof.  Stuart  of  Andover  who  has 
published  a  very  candid  article  in  opposition  to 
the  views  of  our  Baptist  brethren.  "  The  ques- 
tion apposite  to  our  purpose  is :  Where  and 
how  were  they  baptized?^^ 


34  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

"  Was  it  in  the  brooks  or  streams  near  Jeru- 
salem ?  I  cannot  find  this  to  be  probable.  The 
feast  of  Pentecost  being  fifty  days  after  the  pass- 
over  must  have  fallen  into  the  latter  part  of  the 
month  of  May,  and  after  the  Jewish  harvest. 
In  Palestine,  this  is  usually  a  time  of  drought, 
or  at  least  of  great  scarcity  of  rain.  The  brook 
Kidron,  on  the  east  of  Jerusalem,  was  not  a  pe- 
rennial stream ;  and  the  brooks  on  the  south  of 
the  city,  from  the  fountain  of  Shiloh  or  Gihon, 
were  not  adequate,  without  some  special  prep- 
aration, for  the  purpose  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion ;  as  one  must  be  prone  to  think,  from  the 
representations  concerning  them.  Nothing  can 
be  more  natural,  moreover,  than  ihe  supposi- 
tion, that  if  the  apostles  baptized  the  three  thou- 
sand in  either  of  the  streams  around  Jerusalem, 
it  would  have  been  mentioned ;  just  as  it  is  said 
of  John,  that  he  baptized  in  the  Jordan.  No 
such  mention  however  is  made." 

"We  must  conclude,  then,  that  if  baptism  by 
immersion  was  practised  on  this  occasion,  it 
must  have  been  in  baths  or  washing  places.  I 
do  not  say  that  this  was  impossible,  for  every 
one  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  rites  must  know 
that  they  made  much  use  of  ablutions ;  and 
therefore  they  would  provide  many  convenien- 
ces for  them.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  in  res- 
pect to  the  present  occasion,  that  a  great  many 
of  the  three  thousand  were  foreigners.  How 
many  belonged  to  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  we 
cannot  tell.  But  we  may  ask,  did  the  apostles 
baptize  without  individual  confession  and  pro- 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  25 

fessioii,  like  that  of  the  eunuch  insisted  on  by 
Phihp  ?  We  can  hardly  deem  this  probable. 
Supposing  then,  that  these  were  required,  and 
that  the  apostles  resorted  to  private  baths  in  or- 
der to  baptize,  would  one  day,  or  rather,  some 
three  quarters  of  a  day  suffice  to  perform  such 
a  work?  On  the  supposition  that  only  the 
apostles  baptized ;  and  granting,  moreover,  that 
Peter  ended  his  sermon  at  nine  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  ("  the  third  hour  of  the  day")  whereas 
he  only  began  it  then ;  the  consequence  would 
be,  that  for  the  remaining  nine  hours  of  the  day 
1.  e.  540  minutes,  each  apostle  must  have  bapti- 
zed, on  an  average,  one  in  about  two  minutes, 
inasmuch  as  each  would  have  had  250  baptisms 
to  perform,  if  they  were  equally  divided." 

For  these  reasons  Prof.  Stuart  concludes  that 
the  multitude  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  could  not 
have  been  immersed.  But  the  impossibility  is 
still  more  confirmed,  if  we  allow  half  an  hour 
for  Peter's  sermon,  and  one  hour  more  for  the 
individual  confession  of  the  persons  to  be  bap- 
tized. We  have  then  450  minutes  left  for  each 
apostle  to  baptize  250  persons  ;  that  is,  one  in 
less  than  a  minute  and  a  half.  If  a  man  can 
baptize  some  half  a  dozen  at  this  rate,  when  he 
is  sacrificing  solemnity  to  see  how  fast  he  can 
do  it,  he  could  not  two  hundred  and  fifty.  It 
may  be  added  also,  that  the  great  parade  and 
ceremony  of  immersion,  could  not  be  had  among 
all  this  multitude  of  strangers,  who  could  nei- 
ther have  been  provided  with  a  change  of  dress, 
nor  be  accommodated  with  one  by  the  inhabit- 


Jl. 


26  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

ants  of  Jerusalem.  And  when  any  thing  of  this 
sort  is  done,  it  is  customary  with  the  sacred  wri- 
ters to  give  some  notice  of  it ;  but  not  a  hint  is 
given  to  tell  us  how  the  baptism  was  perform- 
ed. The  baths  in  the  city  were,  moreover,  in 
the  hands  of  those  who  were  unfriendly  to  the 
apostles,  and  would  not  therefore  be  furnished 
for  baptism.  Every  circumstance  .that  can  be 
thought  of,  forbids  the  idea  of  immersion  on  this 
occasion. 

2.  Let  us  next  look  at  PauVs  baptism. — 
Paul  "  was  three  days  without  sight,  and  nei- 
ther did  eat  nor  drink," — so  greatly  was  his  body 
weakened  by  the  wonderful  scene  through  which 
he  passed  on  his  way  to  Damascus.  In  this 
^veak  condition  Ananias  being  sent  of  the  Lord, 
found  him.  After  addressing  him  in  an  appro- 
priate manner,  he  said,  "  And  now  why  tarriest 
thou  ?  arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And 
immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had 
been  scales ;  and  he  received  sight  forthwith, 
and  he  arose  and  was  baptized.  And  when  he 
had  received  meat  he  was  strengthened."  Now 
here  observe,  brethren,  that  all  the  circumstan- 
ces seem  to  be  related,  and  yet  no  leaving  the 
house  in  search  of  water  for  baptism.  It  is  not 
merely  said,  he  was  baptized,  but  he  arose  and 
was  baptized.  If  he  left  the  house  why  should 
not  that  circumstance  be  mentioned  as  well  as 
his  arising?  '  He  arose  and  went  to  the  water 
and  was  baptized,'  must  have  been  the  declara- 
tion if  that  circumstance  was  actually  added  to 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  27 

his  arising.  But  the  next  circumstance  seems 
to  intimate  that  he  was  unable  to  leave  the  house 
till  after  his  baptism.  It  is  said,  "  when  he  had 
received  meat  he  was  strengthened."  His 
strength  then  did  not  come  till  after  his  bap- 
tism. Now  can  all  this  be  said  of  a  sick  man ; 
can  so  much  particularity  be  had  in  the  narra- 
tive of  his  baptism,  and  yet  the  circumstance  of 
his  going  out  of  the  house  for  a  river  or  bath  be 
omitted,  if  such  a  circumstance  took  place  ? 
The  plain  face  of  the  account  shows  us  that  he 
was  not  immersed.  Whoever  else  was  immers- 
ed, this  account  clearly  intimates  that  Paul  was 
not. 

3.  So  also  the  jailor^ — He  was  baptized  at 
midnight,  in  the  prison  by  Paul  or  Silas.  They 
could  not  have  gone  out  for  water,  because  such 
a  step  was  death  by  the  Roman  law  ;  and  more- 
OTer,  the  apostles  were  too  much  wounded  and 
sore  to  have  done  so.  The  jailor  brought  them 
out,  not  of  the  prison  but  of  the  dungeon  where 
they  were  placed ;  for  it  appears  that  in  the 
morning  they  were  not  yet  out.  They  would 
not  go  out  till  the  magistrates  themselves  sent 
and  fetched  them  out.  If  they  had  gone  out  in 
the  night,  and  then  solemnly  told,  the  magis- 
trates that  they  would  not  go  out,^  would  such 
conduct  look  like  that  simplicity  aa^  godly  sin- 
cerity on  which  they  acted  ? 

To  say  that  there  was  a  bath  in  the  prison  in 
which  the  jailor  could  have  been  immersed,  is 
merely  putting  a  supposition  or  a  guess  for  a 
fact.     Who  knows  that  there  was  a  bath  ?  What 


28  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

historical  evidence  is  there  of  such  a  conven- 
ience in  prisons  under  a  heathen  government? 
Christianity  alone  has  introduced  such  comforts. 
If  therefore  there  should  be  found  a  bath  in  the 
prison  at  Calcutta  under  the  British  govern- 
ment, this  affords  no  probability  of  the  same 
thing  under  the  despotism  of  ancient  Rome. 
The  whole  face  of  the  story  compels  us  to  con- 
clude that  the  jailor  was  baptized  by  water  which 
was  brought  in,  and  that  he  was  consequently 
sprinkled,  not  immersed. 

I  will  just  observe  in  passing,  that  when  Cor- 
nelius and  his  friends  were  baptized,  Peter  said, 
"  Who  can  forbid  water  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  well  as  we  ?"  Is  not  this  the  most  natural 
language  for  a  man  to  use  who  expected  to  bap- 
tize in  the  way  that  we  do  ?  and  most  unnatural 
for  one  who  baptized  by  immersion  ?  Would  it 
not  be  straining  the  passage  to  suppose  that  Pe- 
ter meant  to  say.  Who  can  forbid  going  to  the 
water  ?  When  he  speaks  of  the  water  as  the 
thing  forbidden,  such  an  interpretation  would 
speak  of  the  persons  as  the  things  forbidden. 

4.  The  Ethiopian  eunuch. — "  They  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch ;  and  he  baptized  him."  Nothing  but 
an  acquaintance  with  the  mode  of  river  baptism 
practised  by  some  at  the  present  day,  would  ever 
lead  a  man  to  suspect  that  dipping  or  immer- 
sion was  here  meant.  The  history  says  no  such 
thing,  nor  hints  it.  It  appears  that  the  eunuch 
was  sitting  in  his  chariot  and  reading  about  the 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  29 

Messiah  in  the  fifty  second  and  fifty  third  chap- 
ters of  Isaiah,  in  which  there  is  a  prophecy  that 
he  should  sprinkle  many  nations.  He  did  not 
understand  of  whom  the  prophet  spake ;  but 
when  Philip  preached  unto  him  Jesus,  and 
showed  that  the  whole  prophecy  was  uttered  of 
him,  as  "  they  came  to  a  certain  water,"  the  eu- 
nuch said,  "  See  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder 
me  to  be  baptized  ?"  Who  has  any  authority 
to  say  that  this  "certain  water"  was  a  river? 
Why  not  a  little  stream  or  brook  ?  Indeed  it  is 
almost  certain  that  no  river  was  there,  because 
there  is  none  at  the  present  day ;  and  rivers  in 
those  countries  always  make  habitable  places. 
Hence  if  a  river  had  been  there  it  could  not  have 
been  a  desert.*  And  moreover,  as  the  eunuch 
was  reading  a  prophecy  about  the  Messiah's 
character  and  sufiferings  ;  and  as  in  that  prophe- 
cy it  is  expressly  said,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle 
many  nations  ;"  how  strange  would  it  be  for  the 
eunuch  to  suppose  that  baptism  was  dipping? 
When  therefore  he  said,  "  See  here  is  water, 
what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized,"  it  is  alto- 
gether the  most  probable  that  he  had  the  idea 
of  sprinkling,  as  baptism.     Surely  he  would  not 


*  The  word  desert  is  by  some  referred  to  Gaza  rather 
than  to  the  way.  The  fact,  however,  appears  to  be,  that 
Gaza  was  devastated  by  Alexander,  and  afterwards  re- 
built by  Gabinius.  It  was  devastated  again  a  little  be- 
fore the  siege  of  Jerusalem :  but  it  was  at  this  time  full 
of  inhabitants.  See  Kuinoel  on  the  passage,  and  Rosen- 
mueller  also.  The  word  desert  then  refers  to  the  way, 
and  not  to  Gaza, 

3* 


30  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

expect  to  be  immersed  to  fulfil  a  prophecy  about 
sprinkling ! 

After  all  these  plain  and  obvious  things  in 
the  eunuch's  baptism,  the  phrase  going  down 
into  the  water  as  our  translation  has  it,  can  cer- 
tainly mean  nothing  more  than  what  is  always 
the  fact  when  you  step  into  water ;  especially, 
as  every  Greek  scholar  knows  that  going  down 
to  the  water  and  coming  up  from  it  is  just  as 
good  a  translation  as  the  one  we  have.  Indeed 
Prof.  Stuart  shows  that  it  is  n[iore  agreeable  to 
the  Greek  usage.  But  let  the  translation  stand 
as  it  is,  the  same  idea  is  had  ;  for  in  stepping 
into  water  you  must  needs  go  down.  There  is 
no  necessity  of  supposing  that  the  eunuch  went 
under  water.  Nay  the  contrary  is  implied  by 
the  Greek  words,  which  are  the  same  as  those 
used  concerning  our  Saviour's  baptism.  These 
have  already  been  remarked  upon.  To  go  up 
here  then  is  not  to  rise  up  from  under  a  fluid, 
but  to  go  up  in  such  a  manner  as  you  go  up  a 
tree,  a  ship,  &,.c.  Since  then  going  down  into 
the  water  was  feefore  the  baptism  and  coming 
up  out  of  it  was  after,  what  can  this  signify  as  to 
the  mode  ?  Philip  and  the  eunuch  both  went 
down.     Did  they  both  go  under  water? 

Thus  you  see,  my  brethren,  from  this  concise 
view  of  John's  and  the  apostles'  baptism,  that 
no  instance  of  immersion  can  be  made  out,  but 
that  there  is  much  more  evidence  of  the  contra- 
ry. How  absurd  then  to  talk  of  immersion  as 
constituting  an  essential  quality  in  baptism,  as 
though  a  man  could  not  be  baptized  without  it ! 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  31 

But  we  have  another  claim  to  examine.  It  is 
confidently  said  that  the  Greek  word  Baptizo 
always  signifies  to  immerse ;  and  therefore, 
when  the  Saviour  gave  the  command  to  baptize, 
it  was  the  same  thing  as  to  command  immersion. 
With  how  little  truth  this  is  said,  you  can  be 
able  to  determine  from  what  has  already  been 
laid  before  you.  If  the  circumstances  of  John's 
baptism  and  of  the  apostles'  were  such  as  to  for- 
bid the  idea  of  immersion,  as  I  trust  has  been 
shown,  it  is  very  clear  that  it  is  not  the  meaning 
of  the  word.  No  matter  what  scholars  have  said, 
since  no  declaration  contrary  to  this  is  bottomed 
upon  the  Bible.  The  usage  of  heathen  writers 
with  which  scholars  are  familiar  is  one  thing : 
that  of  the  Bible  is  another.  If  scholars  should 
say  that  the  word  always  means  to  immerse,  the 
unlearned  reader  of  the  New  Testament  could 
see  that  they  said  falsely,  because  the  word  ex- 
plains itself. 

There  is  a  great  misrepresentation  on  this 
subject  which  is  frequently  made,  perhaps  unin- 
tentionally, to  those  who  do  not  understand 
Greek.  It  is  a  mingling  of  the  testimony  of  hea- 
then writers  with  that  of  the  inspired  penmen 
of  the  scriptures.  The  heathen  poets  and  histo- 
rians have  very  extensively  used  the  word  bap- 
tizo in  the  sense  of  immersion,  though  some- 
times in  the  sense  of  a  partial  washing.  Even 
according  to  their  use  of  the  word  then  it  is 
manifestly  proper  to  sprinkle  in  baptism ;  be- 
cause, unless  you  can  make  out  a  universal  use 
of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  Immersion,  you  do 


32  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

not  establish  the  point  that  immersion  is  essen- 
tial to  the  word.  But  the  New  Testament  wri- 
ters use  the  word  quite  differently — seldom  if 
ever  for  immersion.  Nay  in  some  cases  you 
cannot  even  make  sense,  if  you  translate  it  by 
that  idea.  Since  then  the  inquiry  is  for  the 
meaning  which  the  apostles  attached  to  this 
word,  and  not  for  that  which  Homer  and  Thu- 
cydides  gave  to  it ;  I  cannot  see  any  use  in  go- 
ing beyond  the  Bible.  Any  plain  reader  of  the 
scriptures  can  see  that  the  word,  where  it  is  ap- 
plied to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  does  not  mean 
to  immerse,  for  the  reasons  a[lready  stated  in  this 
discourse.  Our  text  alone  compared  with  the 
next  chapter,  settles  this  question.  And  surely 
all  the  circumstances  of  baptism  both  of  John 
and  the  apostles,  confirm  it. 

In  such  a  state  of  facts,  what  have  men  who 
are  conversant  with  classical  or  heathen  writers 
only,  to  do  with  deciding  the  question  as  to  the 
meaning  of  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament?  If 
appeal  must  be  made  to  scholars,  of  which  how- 
ever there  is  no  necessity,  let  us  look  to  those 
who  are  versed  in  Biblical  criticism,  rather  than 
classical.  And  who  is  superior  in  this  respect 
to  Prof  Stuart?  He  maintains  in  the  article 
already  alluded  to*  that  the  word  baptizo  does 
signify  to  immerse  for  the  most  part,  in  the 
classical,  that  is,  what  the  Bible  denominates, 
heathen  writers.  No  scholar  he  says  will  de- 
ny it.     He  proves  his  position  by  a  sufficient 

*  See  Biblical  Repository  for  April,  1833. 


THE   MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  33 

number  of  quotations.  He  afterwards  pro- 
ceeds to  the  New  Testament  usage,  and  main- 
tains that  the  word  is  used  quite  differently;  and 
that  it  is  impossible  to  determine  the  mode  of 
"baptism  from  the  New  Testament,  except  that 
some  of  the  cases  contain  clear  indications  of 
probability  against  immersion.  .  After  a  very 
full  investigation  of  the  subject,  he  says,  "I  do 
consider  it  as  quite  plain  that  none  of  the  cir- 
cumstantial evidence  thus  far,"  (that  is  in  the 
Bible,)  "  proves  immersion  to  have  been  exclu- 
sively the  mode  of  christian  baptism,  or  even 
that  of  John.  Indeed  I  consider  this  point  so  far 
made  out,  that  I  can  hardly  suppress  the  convic- 
tion, that  if  any  one  maintains  the  contrary,  it 
must  be  either  because  he  is  unable  rightly  to 
estimate  the  nature  or  power  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage ;  or  because  he  is  influenced  in  some 
measure  by  party  feeling ;  or  else  because  he 
has  looked  at  the  subject  in  only  a  partial  man- 
ner, without  examining  it  fully  and  thoroughly." 

I  do  not  appeal  to  this  respected  gentleman 
as  authority.  I  would  call  no  man  master  on 
earth.  But  since  those  who  say  that  baptizo 
means  to  immerse,  are  perpetually  talking  of  the 
decision  of  scholars  on  the  question,  I  thought 
it  might  not  be  improper  to  introduce  a  scholar 
to  your  notice. 

I  repeat  it  then,  it  is  the  heathen  writers  that 
use  the  word  baptizo  in  the  sense  of  immersion; 
and  it  is  these  on  which  scholars  are  united  in 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word.  But  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  case  is  entirely  different. 


34  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Now  shall  we  take  the  heathen  for  our  instruct" 
ors  on  this  subject,  or  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  ?  The  latter  use  many  words  in  a 
different  sense  from  that  in  which  the  ancient 
heathen  Greeks  used  them.  And  from  their 
different  manners,  customs  and  general  circum- 
stances, it  is  not  strange  that  they  should. 

If  it  could  be  made  out  that  baptizo  always 
signifies  to  immerse  when  applied  to  other  things 
than  the  ordinance  in  question,  I  cannot  see  that 
it  would  hold  the  same  here ;  because  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  limit  its  signification. 
It  is  admitted  by  all  that  the  word  Deipnon 
which  is  used  for  the  Lord's  Supper  does,  in 
every  other  use  of  it,  invariably  signify  a  feast — 
a  full  meal.  And  yet  nobody  pretends  that  it 
signifies  so  in  its  application  to  the  ordinance  of 
the  Supper.  If  any  would  take  sides  on  a  con- 
troversy about  the  meaning  of  the  word  Deip- 
non, that  side  which  claimed  that  it  means  a.  full 
meal,  would  have  the  victory.  And  if  its  usual 
signification  is  to  settle  the  point  of  its  meaning 
in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  then  no  one  can 
maintain  that  a  small  piece  of  bread  and  a  spoon- 
ful of  wine  is  the  Lord's  Supper  to  any  individ- 
ual. Nothing  but  a  full  meal  could  stand  for  it. 
Now  would  not  every  one  say  that  this  was  an 
absurd  conclusion,  a  miserable  criticism  ?  And 
yet  it  rests  on  precisely  the  same  principle  as  the 
conclusion  respecting  baptizo  which  we  are  op- 
posing. Admitting  that  it  signifies  to  immerse  in 
other  applications,  it  must  signify  the  same,  it  is 
said,  when  applied  to  the  ordinance,  notwith- 
standing circumstances  forbid  that  signification. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  35 

But  we  cannot  admit  that  baptizo  does  signify- 
to  immerse  in  other  applications  of  it.  The 
New  Testament  writers,  sometimes  use  the  word 
in  the  sense  of  mere  washing.  For  example, 
"And  when  they  came  from  the  market,  except 
they  wash  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as 
the  washing  of  cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels 
and  tables."*  Here  the  original  word  which 
is  translated  washis  haptizo,  and  the  other  which 
is  rendered  washing  is  baptism.  Now  did  the 
Jews  immerse  themselves  whenever  they  came 
from  market  ?  And  did  they  immerse  their  ta- 
bles, or  rather  couches,  for  that  is  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek  ?  To  the  same  purpose  is  Luke  xi, 
38.  "  But  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  mar- 
velled that  he  had  not  first  washed  (baptized) 
before  dinner."  So  also  it  is  said  in  Heb.  ix,  10. 
of  the  Jewish  ceremonies,  "  meats  and  drinks 
and  divers  washings.''  Here  the  original  word 
is  baptisms.  Now  we  know  that  these  "  divers 
w^ashings"  or  baptisms  were,  for  the  most  part, 
sprinklings.  Thus  we  read  of  the  sprinkling  of 
water  of  purifying  upon  the  Levites,  Num.  viii, 
7. ;  sprinkhng  of  the  unclean,  xix,  18.  So  also 
we  read  of  the  blood  which  was  sprinkled,  &c. 
'Indeed,  sprinkling  is  the  most  common  em- 
blem employed  in  the  scriptures  for  purification. 
We  read  of  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  and  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  And  when 
the  influence  of  the  best  things  is  mentioned,  it 

*  Mark  vii,  4. 


36  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

is  represented  by  sprinkling.  Thus  Christ  is 
spoken  of  as  sprinkling  many  nations.  And  God 
promises  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  in  the  follow- 
ing remarkable  language :  "  Then  will  I  sprin- 
kle clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean ; 
from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols 
will  I  cleanse  you."  With  such  a  sanction,  ad- 
ded to  all  the  other  evidence,  how  can  I  fail  to 
be  satisfied  that  sprinkling  is  peculiarly  appro- 
priate in  baptism  ? 

All  these  things  are  confirmed  by  two  allu- 
sions in  the  New  Testament,  the  baptism  of 
Moses  and  that  of  Noah.  Paul  says,  the  Isra- 
elites "  were  all  baptized  into  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."*  Now  here  we  are  sure 
that  if  any  water  touched  them  at  all,  it  was 
sprinkled  upon  them;  for  the  history  of  the 
transaction  tells  us,  "  They  went  into  the  midst 
of  the  sea  upon  the  dry  ground  :  and  the  waters 
were  a  wall  unto  them  on  their  right  hand  and 
on  their  left."t  The  Egyptians  who  pursued 
them  were  immersed,  but  not  the  Israelites. 
"  The  Lord  overthrew  the  Egyptians  in  the 
midst  of  the  sea." 

The  second  allusion  is  by  Peter.  He  says 
that  in  the  days  of  Noah  "  eight  souls  were  sa- 
ved by  water,  the  like  figure  whereunto  baptiSm 
doth  also  now  save  us,  not  the  putting  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  towards  God."J  If  Noah's  being 
saved  by  water  is  compared  to  baptism,  it  is 

*  1  Cor.  X.  2.      t  Ex.  xiv.  23.      1 1  Pet.  iii.  20, 21. 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  37 

certain  that  it  was  not  immersion  ;  for  no  water 
touched  him  unless  it  might  be  sprinkling  of 
the  surge,  or  of  the  rain.  The  world  of  the  un- 
godly were  plunged  beneath  the  wave.  In 
both  these  cases  the  only  immersion  which  took 
place  was  had  by  the  wicked.  The  people  of 
God  had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

As  the  argument  from  scripture  fails  to  prove 
that  immersion  was  the  mode  of  baptism  insti- 
tuted by  Christ,  we  are  referred  to  the  testimo- 
ny of  history,  which,  it  is  said,  may  be  consid- 
ered as  a  fair  interpreter  of  scripture  on  this 
subject.  Our  limits  will  not  permit  an  extensive 
examination  of  this  argument.  For  the  facts, 
we  shall  avail  ourselves  of  the  investigations  of 
Prof.  Stuart.  During  the  first  century  nothing 
definite  occurs.  As  early  as  the  third  century 
it  appears  that  immersion  was  generally  prac- 
tised, at  least  in  Africa.  Not  however  immer- 
sion like  the  modern  Baptists,  but  what  was 
called  the  trine  immersion,  that  is  dipping  the 
body  under  three  times,  once  in  the  name  of 
each  person  of  the  Trinity.  Baptisms  by  sprink- 
ling or  affusion  were  even  then  allowed  in  cases 
of  sickness.  And  cases  are  mentioned,  without 
any  such  reason,  of  baptism  by  pouring  water 
on  the  head.  But  the  same  testimony  shows 
also  a  most  disgusting  particular,  which  is,  that 
every  one,  "  men,  women  and  infants  were  com- 
pletely divested  of  all  their  garments,  in  order 
to  be  baptized.  Revolting  as  this  custom  was, 
yet  it  is  as  certain  as  testimony  can  make  it." 
I  will  quote  one  sentence  from  Ambrose  as  a 
4 


38  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

specimen :  "  Naked  were  we  born  into  the 
world ;  naked  came  we  to  the  baptismal  font. 
How  absurd  then  that  he  whom  his  mother 
brought  forth  naked,  the  church  received  naked, 
should  enter  heaven  with  riches."  "  For  1600 
years,"  says  Brenner,  a  writer  quoted  by  Stuart, 
*'  was  the  person  to  be  baptized,  either  by  im- 
mersion or  affusion,  entirely  divested  of  his 
garments."  This  disgusting  peculiarity  shows 
how  they  might  have  varied  also  in  regard  to 
the  quantity  of  water,  from  the  apostolic  prac- 
tice. 

A  man  acquainted  with  Ecclesiastical  history 
can  easily  account  for  these  customs  without 
supposing  that  they  are  the  institution  of  God, 
especially,  as  the  New  Testament  contains  such 
clear  evidence  as  we  have  already  seen,  against 
them.  There  was  a  spirit  of  self-righteousness 
and  worldly  wisdom  brought  into  the  church  by 
converted  philosophers,  which  soon  gave  rise 
to  human  inventions.  This  was  the  foundation 
of  the  great  fabric  of  Popery.  Hence,  as  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  appointed  the  application  of 
water  to  the  body  to  signify  the  necessity  of  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  on  the  soul — a  cleansing 
operation  :  it  was  probably  argued  in  the  spirit 
of  worldly  wisdom  and  self-righteousness,  the 
more  the  better.  If  little  water  was  appointed, 
then  surely  a  large  quantity  will  be  so  much 
the  better.  Hence  they  not  only  immersed,  but 
immersed  three  times.  And  as  the  water  which 
our  Lord  appointed  was  applied  to  the  naked 
skin  on  the  face,  that  principle  too  was  carried 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  39 

out ;  and  the  water  was  applied  to  the  naked 
body  entire.  This  was  that  natural  principle 
of  human  depravity  to  substitute  an  external 
cleansing  for  an  internal  one  ;  and  to  make  a 
universal  washing  necessary  where  Christ  had 
appointed  only  a  partial  one.  Thus  they  re- 
versed the  Saviour's  own  declaration,  "  He  that 
is  washed  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but 
is  clean  every  whit ;"  that  is,  a  ceremonial 
washing — that  which  signifies  or  sets  forth  in- 
ward, spiritual  washing,  has  no  need  of  a  copi- 
ous flow  of  water,  but  a  little  is  as  good  as  much. 

Now  shall  we  take  testimony  as  to  what  was 
done  in  Africa  more  than  two  centuries  after 
Christ,  to  contravene  the  testimony  of  the  Bi- 
ble as  to  what  was  done  by  inspired  men  ?  The 
African  fathers,  it  seems,  baptized  by  dipping 
each  person  three  times,  naked.  Does  the  Bi- 
ble give  any  hint  of  such  a  thing?  They  bap- 
tized infants  as  well  as  adults  in  this  manner. 
So  that  the  testimony,  if  it  be  taken  for  immer- 
sion, must  be  taken  also  for  Infant  Baptism. 
"Why  not  take  the  decision  of  the  Saviour 
himself,  that  in  a  ceremonial  washing  a  little 
water  is  as  good  as  much?  "  He  that  is  washed 
needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean 
every  whit." 

From  the  plain  common  sense  investigations 
which  we  have  now  made  on  the  authority  of 
the  word  of  God,  our  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  we  find  no  difficulty  in  ascertaining^ 
that  Baptizo  does  not  mean  to  immerse ;  that 
neither  John's  baptism  nor  that  of  the  apostles 


40  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

affords  a  single  certain  instance  of  immersion  ; 
and  that  in  some  cases,  as  the  multitude  that 
came  to  John  and  the  short  time  he  had,  and 
the  multitude  that  came  to  the  apostles  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  immersion  was  out  of  the 
question,  because  it  was  an  impossibility.  To 
say  that  a  miracle  might  have  been  wrought  in- 
these  baptisms  is  mere  trifling,  because  it  is  only 
a  supposition,  there  being  no  record  for  it ;  and 
because  it  would  be  contrary  to  God's  universal 
method  of  proceeding,  miracles  being  had  only 
when  a  sufficient  occasion  called  for  them. 

Let  me  now  turn  your  attention  to  a  passage 
often  quoted  in  favor  of  immersion,  Rom.  vi.  4. 
"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death.'* 

That  the  apostle  does  not  intend  to  refer  to 
plunging  or  immersion  as  baptism,  I  think  is 
plain  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  His  argument  would  be  interrupted  by  such 
a  reference.  He  is  showing  the  death  to  sin  which 
Christians  that  are  true  to  their  profession  un- 
dergo. Accordingly,  he  uses  various  similitudes 
such  as  death,  burial,  crucifixion,  resurrection — 
all  which  must  be  applied  to  the  subject  upon 
which  the  apostle  is  discoursing,  that  is,  a  pecu- 
liar sort  of  death,  a  death  to  sin.  If  you  turn  off 
one  of  these  similitudes  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
the  argument  is  interrupted,  and  the  mind  is 
diverted  from  the  main  point  before  it.  And 
then  why  should  we  select  one  of  these  simili- 
tudes or  figures  rather  than  another  ?  Why  for 
example,  should  we  select  burial  rather  than 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  41 

crucifixion  ?  And  if  burial  signifies  the  mode 
of  baptism,  what  does  crucifixion  signify  ?  And 
so  also-  if  the  resurrection  mentioned  in  the 
fourth  verse  signifies  a  resurrection  from  the 
water,  how  comes  it  about  that  the  apostle  says 
that  the  resurrection  which  he  means,  is  amoral 
one — raising  to  walk  in  newness  of  life  ?  And 
moreover,  in  the  fifth  verse  he  directly  explains 
this  resurrection  to  be  that  which  is  not  yet  ac- 
complished— we  shall  be.  Unless  then  you 
suppose  that  the  christians  whom  he  addressed 
were  at  that  time  actually  under  the  water,  and 
the  apostle  was  speaking  of  them  as  coming  up, 
you  cannot  apply  this  resurrection  to  coming 
up  out  of  the  water. 

2.  There  is  a  manifest  antithesis  or  contrast 
kept  up  between  the  burial  of  christians  by 
baptism  and  their  resurrection.  But  the  resur- 
rection is  a  moral  one,  a  rising  from  sin  to  ho- 
liness— newness  of  life.  How  then  can  we 
take  the  burial  in  a  physical  sense  as  a  burial 
under  water,  and  the  resurrection  to  which  it  is 
put  in  contrast  in  a  moral  sense  as  the  apostle 
limits  it — raised  up  to  newness  of  life  ?  Here 
then  is  the  resurrection  described  as  something 
not  yet  accomplished,  to  be  had  in  all  the  acts 
of  a  christian  life  ;  and  yet  the  burial,  on  the 
supposition  we  are  examining,  is  a  physical  bu- 
rial, confined  to  one  literal  act,  and  that  an  act 
of  a  physical  kind,  an  immersion  in  water ! 
It  would  be  a  strange  mixture  of  ideas  to  talk 
of  a  moral  resurrection  as  opposed  to  a  physic- 
al burial;  for  observe  the  apostle  does  not 
4* 


42  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

speak  of  rising  from  the  water  but  rising  to 
newness  of  life.  He  speaks  of  being  dead  to 
sin,  buried  to  sin,  and  rising  to  righteousness. 
Nor  does  he  speak  of  baptism  as  burial,  but 
"  baptism  into  death."  Here  then  we  have  the 
resurrection  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  entire- 
ly a  moral  idea :  and  here  is  the  burial  which 
must  needs  be  a  moral  idea,  or  else  the  antithe- 
sis is  not  preserved. 

3.  The  words  buried  with  him,  in  verse  4, 
have  evidently  the  same  meaning  as  the  words 
dead  with  Christ  in  v.  8. ;  for  the  same  conse- 
quences are  said  to  follow,  viz.  living  with 
Christ ;  or  maintaining  a  new  life.  Now  if  you 
interpret  the  first  as  a  literal  burying  in  water, 
how  will  you  interpret  the  second  ?  The  se- 
cond is  beyond  all  question  a  moral  death — ^a 
death  to  sin.  For  the  same  reason  the  first  is  a 
moral  burying,  a  burying  to  sin. 

4.  The  idea  of  baptism  is  an  idea  of  purifi- 
cation. It  is  washing  with  water.  But  the 
idea  of  burying  which  you  take  as  a  similitude 
of  baptism,  is  an  idea  of  pollution.  No  place 
is  so  polluted  and  loathsome  as  the  grave.  How 
then  can  baptism  be  represented  by  it  ?  Or  how 
can  baptism  represent  the  grave  ?  If  you  take 
the  burial  in  a  physical  sense,  you  must  connect 
these  physical  ideas  with  it,  viz.  loathsomeness 
and  pollution :  but  if  you  take  it  in  a  moral 
sense  as  implying  merely  a  moral  burying — a 
carrying  out  of  the  figure  of  death  to  sin,  these 
ideas  need  not  be  attached  to  it.  If  you  say 
that  it  is  Christ's  burial  alone  to  which  it  ap- 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  43 

plies,  and  therefore  the  idea  of  corruption  is 
absent ;  you  involve  yourself  in  another  diffi- 
culty. You  must  now  find  a  likeness  between 
dipping  under  water  and  being  laid  in  a  sepul- 
chre hewn  out  of  a  rock. 

5.  The  interpretation  which  I  give  of  this 
passage  is  strengthened  and  placed  beyond  all 
doubt,  at  least  to  my  mind,  by  referring  to  Col. 
ii.  12.  the  only  other  passage  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament which  is  supposed  to  refer  to  the  mode 
of  baptism  under  the  description  of  burying. 
"  Buried  with  him  in  haptismy  The  words 
into  death  are  omitted  here,  but  plainly  impli- 
ed. Thus  we  have  the  idea  of  burial.  Now 
what  is  the  opposite — the  resurrection?  "Ye 
are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  op- 
eration of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  Here  then  is  a  moral  resurrection  which 
christians  undergo  in  this  life,  just  as  in  the 
passage  we  are  considering,  opposed  to  buried 
with  him  in  baptism.  Now  does  it  not  destroy 
the  whole  meaning  of  the  buried  with  him  in 
baptism  into  his  death,  held  up  in  contrast  with 
the  risen  with  him  which  is  definitely  fixed  to  a 
moral  subject,  to  understand  it  of  a  literal  im- 
mersion in  water?  What  contrast  or  antithesis 
can  be  found  between  immersion  or  burial  in 
water,  and  rising  "  through  the  faith  which  is  of 
the  operation  of  God  ?"  If  you  say  it  is  rising 
from  the  water,  you  contradict  the  apostle  ;  for 
he  says  it  is  "  rising  by  the  faith  which  is  of  the 
operation  of  God ;"  or  in  other  words,  the 
words  of  the  passage  in  Romans ;  "  to  newness 


44  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

of  life."  Surely  we  should  let  the  apostle  in- 
terpret his  own  language,  and  not  put  a  mean- 
ing upon  it  to  suit  our  convenience.  And  then 
too,  the  baptism  here  spoken  of  is  affirmed  to 
be  the  circumcision  of  Christ  in  the  preceding 
verse,  that  is,  the  circumcision  of  Christianity. 
So  that  this  baptism  by  which  we  profess  to  be 
Christ's,  and  become  dead  to  sin,  may  be  affirm- 
ed of  infants  as  well  as  adults;  the  condition 
being  necessarily  implied  as  in  the  case  of  adults, 
when  they  walk  in  newness  of  life. 

For  these  reasons  then  I  cannot  but  think 
that  the  apostle  does  not,  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Romans,  speak  of  the  mode  of  baptism  at 
all.  To  suppose  that  he  did,  would  be  to  in- 
terrupt the  course  of  his  argument  without  any 
need  of  so  doing ;  it  would  be  to  destroy  the 
contrast  which  he  is  maintaining  between  a 
moral  burial  and  a  moral  resurrection  ;  it  would 
be  to  take  away  the  whole  force  of  the  eighth 
verse,  where  it  is  said  that  we  are  dead  with 
Christ  and  shall  live  with  him  ;  it  would  be  to 
introduce  a  comparison  between  loathsomer>ess 
and  cleanliness  and  affirming  them  to  be  alike, 
and  it  would  be  to  contradict  the  plain  declftra- 
tion  of  the  same  apostle  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Collossians. 

Thus  it  is  clear  beyond  all  reasonable  dispute, 
that  the  scriptures  do  not  hold  forth  immersion 
as  baptism  ;  but  if  any  mode  is  specially  brought 
to  view,  it  is  sprinkling  or  pouring  ;  that  being 
the  most  common  emblem  of  purification. 
What  folly  and  presumption    to   disturb   the 


THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  45 

church  of  Christ  by  insisting  upon  something 
which  cannot  be  proved  from  scripture  !  Stand 
fast,  then,  my  brethren  in  the  liberty  wherewith 
Christ  hath  made  you  free  ;  and  be  not  entangled 
in  the  yoke  of  bondage.  Let  not  external  or- 
dinances which  are  the  mere  badges  of  your 
character,  take  the  place  of  the  character  itself. 
Put  on  the  new  man  which  after  God  is  renew- 
ed in  knowledge  and  true  holiness.  Let  the 
word  of  God  dwell  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom. 
Search  the  scriptures.  Let  no  man  deceive  you 
with  a  show  of  knowledge  and  with  vain  words. 
And  above  all,  let  not  the  confidence  with  which 
a  man  may  talk  in  the  maintainance  of  unscrip- 
tural  opinions,  lead  you  to  doubt  whether  he 
may  not  have  truth  on  his  side.  Confidence 
may  arise  from  ignorance  or  depravity,  or  sect- 
arian pride.  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony: 
If  we  speak  not  according  to  that  word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  us.  "  The  Bible, 
the  Bible,"  said  Chillingworth,  "  the  Bible  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants."  Without  pretending 
to  judge  respecting  others,  let  us  cling  to  the 
plain  truth  of  God.  Let  the  spirituality  of  the 
Christian  religion  be  ours.  And  if  any  give 
themselves  to  vain  janglings,  and  words  which 
profit  not,  and  confident  assertions ;  let  them 
alone :  but  walk  ye  in  the  hght  which  God  has 
given  you..  Firmly  pursue  the  path  of  holiness. 
Remember  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not 
meat  and  drink  but  righteousness  and  peace  and 
joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Stand  ye  in  the  ways 
sndggee,  and  ask  for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the 


46  THE    MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

good  way,  and  walk  therein,  and  ye  shall  find 
rest  for  your  souls.  For  the  grace  of  God  that 
bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  to  all  men, 
teaching  us  that  denying  ungodliness  and  world- 
ly lusts,  we  should  live  soberly,  righteously  and 
godly  in  this  present  world,  looking  for  that 
blessed  hope  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  our 
great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  who  gave 
himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from 
all  iniquity  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar 
people,  zealous  of  good  works.  These  things 
I  would  speak,  and  exhort.  Not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of 
regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour  ;  that,  being  justified 
by  his  grace,  we  should  be  made  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  hope  of  eternal  life.  This  is  religion. 
Neither  circumcision  nor  uncircumcision  avaii- 
eth  any  thing,  but  a  new  creature. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  47 

DISCOURSE  II. 

CLOSE    COMMUNION. 


I.  Cor.  X.  16. 

*'  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  commun' 
ion  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  the  bread  vjhich  we  break  ^  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?" 

The  communion  of  saints,  which  the  scrip- 
tures so  often  bring  to  view,  is  not  confined  to 
the  Lord's  table.  It  is  had  in  prayer,  in  singing, 
and  in  preaching  the  word  ;  indeed,  in  all  those 
acts  of  the  christian  life  whereby  saints  show- 
that  they  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  feel 
alike  in  regard  to  the  great  interests  of  his  king- 
dom. In  all  these  things  there  is  no  objection 
on  the  part  of  any  to  a  full  communion.  It  is 
merely  in  the  article  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
which  the  separation  takes  place — a  most  un- 
fortunate spot  upon  which  to  take  that  stand, 
since  that  is  a  bond  of  union,  according  to  our 
text,  among  the  followers  of  Christ.  If  there  is 
any  one  spot  in  the  whole  pilgrimage  here  be- 
low in  which  those  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  sincerity,  should  lay  aside  their  differ- 
ences, and  come  together  in  the  spirit  of  love, 
gratitude  and  obedience  ;  it  is  at  the  table  which 
is  spread  for  the  benefit  of  all,  where  the  Lord 
says  to  his  people.  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New- 
Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the  re- 


48  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

mission  of  sins.  Drink  ye  all  of  it.  This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me.  But  though  this  ought  to 
be  the  case,  the  fact  is,  that  it  is  not. 

Those  who  hold  to  close  communion,  do  not 
say  that  those  who  are  out  of  their  enclosure 
are  not  christians.  Nor  do  they  deny  to  such 
the  highest  attainments  in  piety.  They  are  hap- 
pily inconsistent  here,  as  all  good  men  are  when 
they  adopt  erroneous  or  mischievous  principles. 
The  evil  of  the  principle  is  in  part  counteracted 
by  the  inconsistency  of  those  who  hold  it.  The 
tendency  of  the  principle  itself,  however,  is 
wholly  evil ;  and  that  evil  cannot  be  concealed 
or  winked  out  of  sight.  However  excellent 
the  persons  who  hold  it  may  be,  and  however 
self-contradictory  the  principle,  it  does  its  work 
in  the  alienation  of  many  hearts  from  each  other 
which  ought  to  be  united ;  and  in  wounding  the 
Lord  Jesus  in  the  house  of  his  friends. 

I  propose  in  the  following  discourse  to  bring 
the  principle  of  close  communion  to  the  test  of 
scripture  and  common  sense.  Let  it  be  under- 
stood then,  that  close  communion  does  not  set 
up  its  exclusive  pretensions  on  the  ground  of 
exclusive  piety  ;  but  on  the  ground  of  exclusive 
baptism.  There  is  no  dispute  that  those  who 
are  rejected  by  churches  acting  upon  this  prin- 
ciple, are  received  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Baptism  is  said  to  be  immersion  in  water,  and 
then  all  those  who  have  not  passed  through  that 
ceremony  are  affirmed  to  be  disqualified  for  the 
Lord's  Supper,  pious  though  they  be,  and  bap- 
tized in  their  own  conscientious  belief,  though 
they  be. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  49 

Now  this  I  expect  to  show  cannot  be  main- 
tained even  on  the  principles  which  tlie  advo- 
cates of  it  profess  to  hold  ;  that  it  is  revolting 
to  the  unadulterated  feelings  of  the  christian  ; 
is  contrary  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel ;  is 
productive  of  self-righteousness  and  a  sectarian 
spirit;  is  inconsistent  with  other  things  allowed 
by  those  who  advocate  it ;  and  is  contrary  to 
the  plain  teachings  of  the  Bible. 

But  before  I  proceed  to  these  main  points  of 
discourse  it  is  proper  to  correct  certain  misrep- 
resentations, or  perhaps  mistakes  which  are 
sometimes  made. 

It  is  affirmed  that  we  are  close  communion- 
istsin  practice  as  much  as  those  who  are  called 
such.  Were  it  not  that  an  attempt  is  made  to 
support  this  declaration  by  an  argument,  I 
should  think  it  was  made  in  sport.  The  argu- 
ment is,  that  we  do  not  commune  with  young 
converts  before  they  unite  with  the  church. 
Hence  we  shut  ourselves  up  from  those  whom 
we  admit  to  be  christians.  They  do  no  more 
than  this  in  refusing  to  commune  with  us. 
This  argument  I  think  will  not  bear  examina- 
tion, for 

In  the  first  place,  both  parties  acknowledge 
that  these  young  converts  are  not  members  in 
full  of  any  particular  church.  These  young 
converts  neither  claim  nor  expect  communion. 
The  proof  of  their  christian  character  is  not 
finished  till  they  come  forward  and  name  the 
name  of  Christ. 


50  CLOSE    C0MMUN10?r. 

In  the  next  place,  the  argument  goes  on  the 
supposition  that  we  are  not  members  of  the 
christian  church  any  more  than  those  who  nev- 
er professed  to  be.  It  is  no  more  nor  less  than 
saying  that  we  do  not  sustain  a  church  relation, 
but  are  only  brought  together  by  some  civil  con- 
tract, or  in  some  way  which  does  not  constitute 
us  a  church  of  Christ.  And  yet  nothing  is  more 
common  than  for  the  same  persons  to  pray  for 
us  as  a  church,  to  call  upon  God  to  bless  the 
pastor,  and  to  designate  him  as  one  set  over  the 
people  in  the  Lord.  Thus  they  acknowledge 
to  God  that  we  are  a  church,  and  then  argue 
with  men  as  though  we  were  not.  If  they  with- 
hold communion  from  us  on  the  principle  that 
we  are  in  the  situation  of  young  converts  before 
they  join  the  church ;  it  is  distinctly  declaring 
that  we  are  not  a  church  of  Christ ;  and  yet 
they  pray  for  us  as  a  church  and  talk  of  us  as 
fellow  christians.  Charity  requires  us  to  be- 
lieve that  they  are  sincere  when  they  address 
themselves  to  God.  The  necessary  inference 
then  is,  that  their  argument  is  either  insincere, 
or  unsound  without  their  perceiving  it. 

The  same  sentiment  is  sometimes  stated  in 
another  form.  It  is  affirmed  that  they  commune 
with  all  that  are  baptized  ;  but  we  do  not  with 
our  children  who,  in  our  opinion,  are  baptized. 
In  reply  to  this  I  say  that  we  never  deny  the 
communion  to  any  of  our  baptized  children  when 
they  request  it,  and  their  moral  character  does 
not  forbid  our  complying  with  their  request ; 
and  they  do  precisely  the  same  with  respect  to 


;   CLOSE    COMMUNION.  51 

their  baptized  persons.  If  their  moral  charac- 
ter forbids,  their  baptism  does  not  entitle  them 
to  the  communion.  So  that  this  article  must  be 
struck  out  of  the  account  on  their  own  princi- 
ples. But  when  we  take  into  view  the  different 
relation  which  baptized  children  sustain  to  the 
church,  according  to  our  principles,  from  be- 
lievers, the  case  is  quite  different.  In  all  fair- 
ness this  case  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  sub- 
ject. It  is  merely  putting  the  constitution  of  an 
Anabaptist  church  in  the  place  of  that  of  a  Pe- 
dobaptist  church.  It  is  therefore  a  mere  eva- 
sion, and  not  an  argument.  But  let  us  see  how 
the  principle  operates  in  fact.  This  is  the  way 
to  test  it.  Is  it  true  that  our  principles  of  com- 
munion exclude  any  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  conscientiously  believe  that  they  are 
baptized ;  and  is  it  true  that  theirs  do  exclude 
such?  This  is  the  question.  It  is  notorious 
that  we  have  occasional  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  other  denominations  besides 
our  own ;  and  it  is  equally  notorious  that  they 
do  not.  This  is  the  fact  in  the  case,  whatever 
may  be  the  theory.  The  claim  they  set  up  then 
of  being  no  more  close  communionists  than  we, 
is  nothing  but  sound.  It  consists  in  words  but 
not  in  deeds.  No  candid  man  therefore  can  ad- 
mit it,  however  plausible  the  argument  might 
seem.  It  will  not  bear  the  test  of  facts.  Noth- 
ing can  be  more  unfair  then,  than  the  represen- 
tation we  have  now  examined.  If  close  com- 
munion is  to  be  maintained  it  should  be  main- 
tained on  its  own  merits,  not  by  fixing  it  upon 


52  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

others  who  disclaim  it  both  in  principle  and  in 
practice. 

There  is  still  another  form  in  which  this  ar- 
gument is  stated.  It  is  said  that  as  we  believe 
baptism  to  be  a  prerequisite  to  the  communion 
we  stand  on  the  same  ground  that  they  do.  On 
this  point  I  would  ask — what  mode  of  baptism 
do  we  require?  Do  we  insist  upon  sprinkling 
as  essential  to  baptism  ?  The  two  cases  are  not 
alike  unless  this  can  be  made  out. 

It  appears  then  that  there  is  something  in  our 
practice  which  does,  in  some  sense,  restrict 
communion.  That  is,  there  is  something  which, 
if  bottomed  on  their  principles  and  carried  out 
on  their  principles,  would  amount  to  close 
communion.  But  the  difference  is,  that  baptism 
in  our  estimation  is  not  so  exclusive  as  in  theirs  ; 
and  therefore,  the  communion  which  is  con- 
nected with  it  is  not  so  exclusive.  It  amounts  in 
fact  to  no  exclusiveness  at  all.  Our  principles 
and  not  theirs  should  be  applied  to  the  subject. 
It  is  unfair  to  confound  this  obvious  distinction 
— to  take  our  principles  to  start  with,  and  then 
reason  upon  theirs.  If  our  brethren  can  point 
out  an  inconsistency  in  our  principles  let  them 
do  it,  but  let  the  fact  be  acknowledged.  The 
system  of  close  communion  is  something  tan- 
gible. It  is  a  matter  of  fact,  not  a  mere  specula- 
tion. The  fact  then  is,  that  the  actual  operation 
of  their  principles  in  regard  to  baptism  does 
exclude  all  but  their  own  denomination  from 
the  table  of  the  Lord  ;  whereas  that  of  ours 
excludes  no  one  of  any  evangelical  denomina- 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  53 

Uon.  Nor  are  their  members  free  to  commune 
among  christians  wherever  they  happen  to  be  : 
whereas  ours  are  left  to  their  own  judgment  on 
this  subject  without  the  danger  of  censure.  If, 
then,  we  restrict  communion  we  restrict  it  with- 
in such  wide  bounds  as  to  make  no  practical  dif- 
ficulty. Their  restriction  cuts  off  thousands  of 
acknowledged  christians  from  their  embrace. 
Beyond  all  dispute,  therefore,  we  are  not  close 
comraunionists  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  term. 
It  is  said  again,  that  our  communing  together 
in  this  world  has  nothing  to  do  with  our  com- 
muning in  heaven,  because  in  heaven  there  are 
no  ordinances.  If  this  remark  has  any  force  it 
must  be  because  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  mere 
external  ordinance,  having  no  effect  upon  the 
heart.  But  surely  this  is  a  very  inadequate 
conception  of  its  nature.  I  do  not  suppose  that 
any  of  the  brethren  who  advocate  close  com- 
munion, really  entertain  it.  The  remark  which 
I  now  notice  is  undoubtedly  made,  without  per- 
ceiving its  full  bearing,  for  the  purpose  of  an- 
swering that  popular  argument,  "  If  we  cannot 
commune  here,  how  can  we  in  heaven  ?"  If  it 
can  be  substantiated  it  will  indeed  answer  the 
argument.  But  it  will  be  done  at  too  dear  a 
price.  It  will  sweep  away  the  whole  spirituali- 
ty of  the  Lord's  Supper  along  with  if;  for  if 
communing  together  here  does  not  refer  to 
communing  in  heaven,  the  beauties  of  commun- 
ion are  sadly  defaced.  Does  not  the  commun- 
ion of  saints  enjoyed  by  way  of  eminence  at 
the  Lord's  table,  reach  in  its  influence  beyond 
5* 


54  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

the  external  signs  ?  Does  it  not  lead  the  soul  to 
that  great  consummation  of  communion  when 
we  shall  all  sit  down  together  at  the  marriage 
supper  of  the  Lamb?  And  does  a  separa- 
tion of  the  followers  of  Christ  here  have  no 
influence  in  producing  a  spirit  ill  fitted  for  that 
blessed  communion  above  ?  When  one  of  our 
number  departs  this  life  does  he  carry  nothing 
with  him  to  heaven  of  the  spirit  of  earthly 
communion  at  the  Lord's  table?  Does  he  not 
look  back  upon  it,  think  you,  with  some  portion 
of  the  spirit  of  heaven  ?  If  communion  on 
earth  when  the  Lord  Jesus  is  specially  present 
with  his  saints,  and  smiles  upon  them  as  one 
body,  does  not  take  hold  of  heaven  ;  I  confess  I 
do  not  understand  the  matter.  I  have  not  so 
learned  Christ.  If  a  separation  here  is  consis- 
tent with  union  there,  then  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
levelled  down  to  something  far  short  of  the 
consequence  which  the  scriptures  give  to  it. 
And  if  union  can  be  maintained  at  all  among 
Christians  that  cannot  celebrate  the  death  of 
their  common  Lord  together ;  then  it  is  with 
the  rejection  of  the  very  point  of  union  itself. 
Then  indeed  the  cup  of  blessing  which  we 
bless  is  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  but  the  signal  of  non-communion — the 
signal  6f  disunion  and  separation. 

I  will  detain  you  no  longer  on  these  prelimin- 
ary remarks  ;  but  proceed  now  to  the  main  sub- 
ject in  hand. 

In  the  first  place.  Close  communion  cannot 
he  maintained  even  on  the  principles  which  its 
advocates  profess  to  hold. 


CLOSE    CQMMUNION.  55 

We  saw  in  our  last  discourse  that  baptism  by 
immersion  cannot  be  made  out  from  scripture. 
But  suppose  it  were  made  out.  What  is  the 
evidence  that  it  is  necessary  as  a  qualification 
for  communion  ?  On  the  principles  of  our  op- 
ponents, great  stress  is  laid  on  positive  precepts 
in  the  New  Testament.  They  reject  the  whole 
doctrine  of  infant  baptism  because  it  is  not  said 
in  so  many  words  that  infants  must  be  baptized. 
Is  there  any  such  declaration  that  baptism  must 
be  had  before  communion  ?  Is  there  any  thing 
more  than  inference  and  analogy  on  this  sub- 
ject, unless  you  go  to  the  Old  Testament?  In 
that  part  of  the  scriptures,  you  find  that  circum- 
cision was  necessary  as  a  qualification  for  par- 
taking of  the  Passover.  Now  since  circumcis- 
ion was  the  initiatory  rite  under  that  dispensa- 
tion, and  indicative  of  the  internal  purification 
of  the  heart,  and  baptism  has  the  same  signifi- 
cation under  the  christian  dispensation ;  and 
since  the  Passover  stood  in  relation  to  that  dis- 
pensation as  the  Lord's  Supper  does  to  this ;  it  is 
easy  to  see  the  propriety  of  baptism  previous  to 
the  communion.  But  our  opponents  can  have 
nothing  to  do  with  this  argument  because  they 
reject  the  whole  authority  of  the  ancient  dispen- 
sation. They  must  rely  then  on  positive  pre- 
cept in  the  New  Testament.  And  where  do 
they  find  it  ?  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  exam- 
ples of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament  are  equiv- 
alent to  a  positive  precept,  because  these  exam- 
ples do  not  hold  forth  the  connexion  between 
the  two  ordinances.    They  are  examples  of  bap- 


56  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

tism  indeed,  but  not  of  the  necessity  of  baptism 
as  a  qualification  for  communion.  Tliere  is  not 
so  much  as  a  single  hint  on  this  subject  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  is  all  argued  out  by  way 
of  inference  and  analogy.  But  what  have  in- 
ference and  analogy  to  do  with  those  who  claim 
that  positive  precept  is  the  only  authority  for  a 
gospel  institution,  and  that  too  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament ?  Whatever  connexion  there  is  between 
the  two  ordinances  is  argued  entirely  from  the 
identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism  and  from 
that  of  the  Passover  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  If 
you  argue  from  one  to  the  other  you  can  show 
the  propriety  of  baptism  as  an  external  qualifi- 
cation for  the  Lord's  Supper ;  but  then  you  take 
the  ground  of  infant  baptism — a  ground  which 
our  opponents  carefully  avoid. 

Nor  can  the  point  of  close  communion  be 
maintained  by  affirming  that  baptism  is  the  or- 
dinance of  introduction  into  the  christian  church, 
and  therefore  must  precede  the  Lord's  Supper; 
for  this  is  only  an  inference  from  the  examples 
recorded.  And  since  circumcision  was  such  an 
introduction  to  the  church  under  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation, and  not  required  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, this  argument  proves  that  baptism  occu- 
pies the  place  of  circumcision  ;  or  else  there  is 
no  initiatory  rite  for  Christianity.  But  this  proves 
too  much  for  our  opponents.  It  cuts  up  other 
principles  by  the  roots. 

In  order  then  to  prove  that  baptism  is  necces- 
sary  as  a  qualification  for  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table,  the  principles  upon  which  antipe- 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  57 

dobaptism  is  founded  must  be  renounced.  What- 
ever proof  we  can  produce  as  to  that  point,  our 
brethren  of  the  close  communion  can  produce 
none.  How  then  can  the  mode  of  a  ceremony- 
be  a  qualification  for  the  Lord's  Supper  when 
that  mode  cannot  be  made  out  from  the  Holy- 
Scriptures  ;  and  when  if  it  could,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  is  necessary  on  the  principles  of 
those  who  plead  for  it? 

If  I  am  asked  here  whether  I  would  admit  a 
person  to  the  Lord's  table  who  in  my  opinion 
was  not  baptized,  I  freely  answer,  yes,  if  the 
person  himself  is  satisfied.  It  is  his  right  and 
not  mine  to  decide  upon  his  baptism  ;  and  if  he 
has  done  wrong  in  regard  to. one  ordinance,  1 
can  see  no  reason  why  I  should  compel  hirii  to 
do  wrong  in  regard  to  the  other.  I  go  further 
and  declare  that  I  should  have  no  hesitation  in 
admitting  one  who  acknowledged  that  he  had 
not  been  baptized,  and  did  not  think  he  ought 
to  be,  if  I  could  not  convince  him  of  his  error. 
In  this  case  I  should  admit  him  on  the  ground 
that  his  own  conscience  and  not  mine  must  an- 
swer to  God  for  neglect  in  regard  to  baptism. 
If  he  could  give  me  evidence  that  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  had  received  him,  I  should  not  dare 
to  reject  him.* 


*  I  speak  here  of  occasional  communion,  not  of  mem- 
bership in  a  particular  church.  The  latter  is  not  plead- 
ed for.  No  Pedobaptist  desires  membership  in  a  Bap- 
tist church.  His  conscience  would  forbid  it.  Neither 
would  any  who  denied  the  propriety  of  baptism  wish  to 


05  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

Further,  if  baptism  by  immersion  is  necessa- 
ry as  a  qualification  for  communion  at  the  Lord's 
table  among  those  who  hold  to  close  commun- 
ion ;  and  if  it  is  wrong  for  them  to  sit  down 
with  us  because  we  have  not  been  immersed ; 
then  it  is  equally  wrong  for  us  to  hold  commun- 
ion among  ourselves,  for  the  same  reason.  The 
fair  inference  is,  that  all  open  communionists 
profane  the  Lord's  table  every  time  they  sit 
down  at  it  together.  Will  our  brethren  abide 
by  this  unavoidable  conclusion  from  their  doc- 
trine ?  Will  they  pronounce  the  greater  part  of 
the  church  of  Christ  profane  intermeddlers  in 
sacred  things  ?  Will  they  say  that  their  solemn 
seasons  of  communion  are  offensive  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Lord  ?  According  to  their  principles  they 
must  be  ;  and  they  therefore  arrive  at  a  virtual 
excommunication  of  the  great  body  of  the  faith- 
ful. Surely  if  any  thing  proves  too  much,  this 
does. 

Once  more.^ — They  admit  that  the  Lord  com- 
munes with  us  notwithstanding  our  want  of 
baptism.  Is  it  right  then  for  christians  to  be 
more  strict  in  their  communion  than  the  Lord  ? 
Does  the  Lord  himself,  the  great  Master  of  the 
feast,  come  to  our  table  and  sit  down  with  us 


become  a  member  of  a  church  which  acknowledged  it. 
Nor  is  it  probable  that  a  case  would  ever  occur  of  a 
man's  desiring  communion  at  all  who  denied  the  pro- 
priety of  baptism.  The  only  reason  that  this  extreme 
case  is  noticed  here  is,  that  it  is  sometimes  put  in  argu> 
ments  on  this  subject. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  59 

with  his  heavenly  benediction  and  his  appro- 
ving countenance,  and  will  they  refuse  to  follow 
him  ?  If  the  Lord  holds  communion  with  all 
our  people  who  are  of  a  sincere  heart,  shall  a 
christian,  a  disciple  of  the  Lord,  set  up  for  a 
purer  and  more  correct  standard,  and  say,  he 
cannot  do  it?  It  he  better  than  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  ?  And  does  he  understand  the  qualifica- 
tions for  communion  more  perfectly  than  he  ? 
The  admission  that  the  Lord  communes  with 
us  which  those  of  the  straitest  sect  of  close 
communion  will  always  make,  is  virtually  giv- 
ing up  the  whole  ground.  It  is  at  once  ac- 
knowledging that  their  own  principles  will  not 
bear  them  out.  If,  my  brethren,  we  have  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  at  our  table,  we  need  not 
concern  ourselves  about  any  one  else.  It  must 
be  right  for  all  the  disciples  to  be  as  their  Lord. 
He  judges  our  qualifications  to  be  sufficient. 
We  may  safely  confide  in  Him  whose  we  are 
and  whom  we  serve,  and  go  on  as  we  have  al- 
ways done.  Indeed,  I  am  not  solicitous  to  be 
admitted  to  the  table  of  those  who  are  disposed 
to  shut  me  out.  I  probably  shall  never  have 
occasion  to  ask  any  such  favor ;  nor  will  you. 
We  dwell  among  our  own  people,  and  keep 
the  ordinances  as  Christ  delivered  them  to  the 
church.  And  we  shall  always  have  opportunity 
to  celebrate  the  dying  love  of  Jesus  till  we 
unite  in  the  general  assembly  and  church  of 
the  first  born  in  remembering  the  same  blood 
which  hath  redeemed  us  to  God.  And  so  long 
as  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  with  us, 


60  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

and  raises  up  over  us  the  banner  of  his  love,  I 
shall  never  be  disturbed.  And  no  man  shall 
take  from  me  my  liberty  which  is  in  Christ.  It 
is  only  for  the  honor  of  religion  that  I  bring 
this  subject  forward.  It  is  to  warn  all  whom  I 
can,  against  becoming  entangled  in  such  a  yoke 
of  bondage. 

Under  this  head  I  have  argued  on  the  princi- 
ples of  the  close  communionists,  and  shown  that 
the  whole  subject  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  I 
proceed  now  to  speak  of  general  principles.  I 
observe  then 

In  the  second  place,  The  subject  of  close 
communion  is  revolting  to  the  unadulterated 
feelings  of  the  christian. 

When  a  young  convert  first  puts  himself  on  the 
Lord's  side,  he  comes,  as  I  may  say,  fresh  from 
under  the  hand  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  have  had 
occasion  to  observe  many  of  this  description  ; 
and  in  every  case  where  the  subject  is  brought 
to  his  mind,  he  feels  its  inconsistency  with  the 
love  which  burns  in  his  bosom  towards  all  the 
friends  of  Christ.  His  first  feelings  towards 
christians,  whether  he  agrees  with  them  or  not 
in  regard  to  some  of  the  doctrines  and  ordinan- 
ces of  the  gospel,  are  those  of  love ;  and  he 
would  not  shut  them  out  from  his  heart  or  shut 
out  his  heart  from  them.  Is  not  this  right  ?  Is 
it  not  christian?  Is  it  not  the  proper  fruit  of 
the  Spirit  ?  Nay  is  it  not  so  certainly  a  fruit  of 
the  Spirit,  that  the  contrary  feeling  at  that  ten- 
der period,  is  usually  regarded  among  intelligent 
christians,  as  proof  that  a  man  is  not  really  con- 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  61 

verted  ?  Feeling  thus  kindly  and  affectionately 
towards  the  people  of  God,  and  disposed  to 
regard  them  as  brethren  ;  does  he  not  feel  too 
that  shutting  them  out  from  communion  is  not 
an  expression  of  love,  but  the  contrary  ? 

Now  mark  his  progress.  His  objections  to 
close  communion  are  argued  down  by  those  who 
have  lost  that  acute  sense  of  its  unseemly  fea- 
tures which  he  has  ;  and  he  begins  to  hesitate. 
Habit  to  them  has  rendered  it  familiar ;  and 
they  have  persuaded  themselves  that  it  is  not 
only  right,  but  consistent  with  all  the  love  they 
are  bound  to  render  to  others.  He  at  length 
yields  to  authority  or  expediency  ;  and  from 
that  moment  the  glow  of  christian  affection  be- 
gins to  subside.  By  and  by  he  regards  those 
who  are  not  in  his  own  communion  with  jeal- 
ousy, distrust  or  aversion.  It  is  impossible  to 
contemplate  your  fellow  christians  as  unqualifi- 
ed for  communion  at  the  most  interesting  of  all 
services,  and  yet  retain  for  them  the  same  affec- 
tion as  you  did  when  this  contemplation  was 
not  had.  Hence  the  fine  glow  of  christian  be- 
nevolence which  a  little  while  since  animated 
this  young  convert's  heart,  is  now  degenerated 
into  the  feelings  of  a  sect.  If  I  have  not  ob- 
served mankind  in  vain,  this  is  the  history  of 
many  a  young  convert  who  is  seduced  into  the 
principles  of  close  communion.  Is  such  a  pro- 
gress right  ?  Is  it  not  mixing  up  the  dehghtful 
feelings  of  the  christian  with  many  adultera- 
tions ? 

6 


63  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

Some  there  are  in  most  close  communion 
churches  who  would  fain  shake  off,  if  they 
could,  the  heavy  weight,  and  welcome  to  the 
table  of  the  Lord,  all  who  give  evidence  of  pie- 
ty. In  moments  of  familiar  christian  inter- 
course, when  heart  meets  heart,  and  when  the 
communion  of  feeling  towards  the  great  centre 
of  attraction,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  felt ; 
it  is  the  spontaneous  dictate  of  love  to  give  up 
exclusive  pretensions.  When  surrounded  by  a 
heathen  population  as  our  missionaries  are,  and 
the  feelings  of  brotherly  love  break  over  every 
barrier,  then  the  christian  heart  shews  itself; 
and  in  these  circumstances  many  a  mission- 
ary who  went  from  home  in  the  belief  of  close 
communion  principles,  has  thrown  them  off 
as  a  yoke  too  heavy  to  be  borne.  This  was 
the  case  with  Mr.  Hough  of  the  American  Bap- 
tist Mission  in  Burmah,  with  the  late  Mr.  Ward 
of  the  Baptist  Mission  in  Bengal,  and  with  Mr. 
Chater  ojf  the  Baptist  Mission  in  Ceylon.  If 
there  is  not  something  revolting  to  the  unadul- 
terated feelings  of  the  christian  in  close  com- 
munion, how  can  you  account  for  these  facts  ? 
How  too  can  you  account  for  it  that  the  young 
convert  always  without  exception,  when  acting 
in  the  warmth  of  his  first  love,  strongly  objects 
to  this  restriction  upon  his  liberty  ? 

So  also  when  the  mind  contemplates  the 
blessed  Redeemer,  and  we  become  animated 
with  his  love,  and  are  filled  with  the  joys  of  his 
presence,  and  look  forward  to  the  spread  of  his 
kingdom  : — is  this  the  moment  to  insist  upon 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  63 

exclusive  pretensions  and  to  shut  out  from  that 
table  where  Jesus  bids  his  followers  to  assem- 
ble, any  of  that  chosen  number  1  Or  is  it  not 
rather  when  the  mind  fastens  upon  something 
confessedly  unessential  to  salvation,  such  as  the 
mode  of  baptism  ?  Does  Christian  character 
shine  brighter  in  close  communion  churches 
than  in  those  of  the  opposite  sentiment  ?  Are 
the  former  more  active  than  the  latter  in  pro- 
moting the  conversion  of  sinners,  in  sending 
abroad  the  gospel  to  the  heathen,  in  shedding  a 
benign  influence  over  the  state  of  society  at 
home  ?  The  contrary,  as  a  general  thing,  is  no- 
toriously the  fact.  Are  we  not  led  to  conclude 
then  that  the  principle  does  not  arise  from  the 
christian  heart,  but  from  something  of  a  foreign 
nature,  something  superinduced,  which  Chris- 
tianity does  not  dictate  ? 

What  is  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  ?  It 
surely  does  not  imply  that  we  view  all  subjects 
alike ;  nor  even  all  the  doctrines  of  religion. 
No  church  on  earth  can  be  found  in  which  such 
a  fact  exists.  Nor  does  it  imply  that  we  view 
all  important  principles  alike.  It  is  only  in  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
we  commune  at  the  Lord's  table.  It  is  the 
adoption  of  the  sentiment  of  our  text,  "  The 
€up  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread 
which  we  break  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
body  of  Christ?"  Why  then  should  we  bring 
forward  a  particular  ordinance  any  more  than 
Other  things  in  the  article  of  communion  ?     Is 


b4  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

this  distinction  the  dictate  of  the  christian  heart? 
Or  is  it  not  rather  the  effect  of  system-making, 
altogether  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  ? 
If  my  brother  is  wrong  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, why  should  I  make  that  more  important 
than  his  being  wrong  in  other  things  ?  Do  we 
commune  together  on  the  principle  of  perfec- 
tion ?  And  is  there  such  a  necessary  con- 
nexion between  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
that  no  irregularity  in  the  former  can  be  tol- 
erated, while  many  imperfections  in  the  latter 
can  be  ?  I  am  sure  the  unadulterated  feelings 
of  the  sanctified  heart  do  not  answer  this  ques-- 
tion  in  the  affirmative. 

There  is  a  case  on  record  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures which,  I  cannot  but  think,  forever  settles 
the  question  that  any  irregularity  or  imperfec- 
tion in  baptism  cannot  exclude  from  the  Lord's 
Supper  those  who  sincerely  set  their  hearts  to 
serve  God.  It  is  recorded  in  2  Chron.  30th 
chapter.  It  is  there  said  that  king  Hezekiah 
celebrated  the  Passover,  and  sent  out  to  the 
people  of  Israel  to  come  to  the  feast.  Great 
multitudes  came  with  a  sincere  purpose  of  ser- 
ving the  Lord ;  but  many  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh  and  Isachar  and  Zebulun  had  not 
cleansed  themselves;  "but  eat  the  passover 
otherwise  than  it  was  written  ;"  and  that  too, 
it  must  be  remembered,  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  when  external  purification 
was  of  far  greater  importance  than  under  the 
spiritual  dispensation  of  the  gospel.  Now  what, 
in  these  circumstances,  did  good  king  Hezekiah 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  65 

do  ?  Did  he  say  he  would  not  eat  the  Passover 
with  such  men  ?  Did  he  say  that  whatever 
might  be  the  internal  purification,  whatever 
might  be  the  piety  of  the  men,  he  would  insist 
upon  conformity  to  external  rites  ?  Far  from 
it.  "  Hezekiah  prayed  for  them,"  says  the  re- 
cord, "  saying.  The  good  Lord  pardon  every 
one  that  prepareth  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the 
Lord  God  of  his  fathers,  though  he  be  not 
cleansed  according  to  the  purification  of  the 
sanctuary.  And  the  Lord  hearkened  to  Heze- 
kiah, and  healed  the  people."  Nay  the  sacred 
historian  adds,  "There  was  great  joy  in  Jerusa- 
lem ;  for  since  the  time  of  Solomon  the  son  of 
David  king  of  Israel,  there  was  not  the  like  in 
Jerusalem" — and  the  prayer  that  was  made  on 
the  occasion,  "  came  up  to  his  holy  dwelling 
place,  even  unto  heaven." 

Now  if  all  this  could  be  done  under  the  an- 
cient dispensation,  where  such  great  stress  was 
laid  upon  external  ceremonies ;  if  the  good 
Lord  could  listen  to  the  king,  and  accept  such 
an  irregular  celebration  because  there  was  sin- 
cerity of  heart  in  it ;  shall  christians  under  the 
glorious  light  of  the  gospel,  insist  upon  a  punc- 
tillious  conformity  to  every  thing  external  ? 
Does  not  the  christian  heart  unadulterated  by 
foreign  mixtures,  spontaneously  approve  the 
course  adopted  by  Hezekiah  ?  And  is  it  not 
diametrically  opposite  to  that  pursued  by  our 
brethren  of  the  close  communion  ?  Surely  we 
ought  not  to  expect  perfect  uniformity  in  the 
church  of  Christ  as  to  external  ordinances.  It 
6* 


66  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

never  did  exist,  and  it  probably  never  will. 
With  all  the  plain  proofs  exhibited  in  the  last 
discourse,  that  baptism  is  riglitly  performed 
without  immersion,  it  is  hardly  possible  that 
christians  will  generally  abandon  those  argu- 
ments, and  conform  to  those  who  insist  upon 
immersion  ;  especially  when  they  solemnly  be- 
lieve that  they  cannot  renounce  their  baptism 
without  sinning  against  God.  Shall  this  point 
then  separate  them  ?  Christian  feeling  says, 
No  ;  but  system-making  and  sectarianism  graft- 
ed upon  it,  muffle  it  up,  and  stifle  its  spontane- 
ous effusions,  so  as  to  produce  the  sound,  Yes. 
Such  a  principle  cannot  prevail.  The  Millen- 
nium is  too  near.  The  soldiers  of  the  cross 
are  marshalling  too  fast  under  the  banner  of 
their  great  Captain  ;  and  the  light  of  truth  and 
of  love  is  breaking  in  too  rapidly  upon  the 
church. 

III.  Close  communion  is  contrary  to  the  sim-^ 
plicity  of  the  gospel. 

The  simplicity  of  the  gospel  is  its  artlessness 
and  its  singleness  of  aim.  It  comes  forward 
with  its  bold  demands  and  insists  upon  them 
with  perfect  openness  and  fairness.  "  My  son 
give  me  thine  heart :"  is  the  sum  and  substance 
of  all.  To  have  the  testimony  of  a  good  con- 
science that  in  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity, 
not  of  fleshly  wisdom  but  by  the  grace  of  God, 
we  have  our  conversation  in  the  world,  is  the 
definition  of  an  humble  christian,  whose  record 
is  on  high,  whom  God  looks  upon  with  pleas- 
ure, and  who  most  certainly  will  arrive  at  hea- 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  67 

ven.  To  produce  this  result  is  the  whole  object 
of  the  gospel.  It  has  then  but  one  object  in 
view,  and  that  is  to  convert  men  to  God  ;  to 
make  men  better  that  they  may  be  prepared 
for  heaven.  Or  in  the  words  of  the  scripture, 
*'  to  translate  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and 
from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they 
may  obtain  remission  of  sins  and  inheritance 
■among  all  them  that  are  sanctified,  through 
faith  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  When  the  wo- 
man of  Samaria  proposed  a  controversy  to  our 
;Saviour  respecting  the  proper  place  of  worship — 
a  matter  which  had  reference  merely  to  exter- 
nal propriety,  he  silenced  the  whole  inquiry 
by  that  significant  reply,  "  God  is  a  Spirit ;  and 
Ihey  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in 
spirit  and  in  truth  ;  for  the  Father  seeketh  such 
to  worship  him."  As  much  as  to  say,  '  The  reli- 
gion of  the  gospel  is  a  spiritual  religion.  It  is 
not  dependent  on  mere  circumstances  of  time 
and  place.  It  concerns  itself  mainly  with  the 
disposition  of  heart  which  its  votaries  possess. 
Ye  must  be  born  again.  Ye  must  repent  and 
believe  the  gospel.  Ye  must  glorify  God  in 
your  body  and  your  spirit  which  are  his  by  a 
cheerful  obedience  to  his  holy  will.  Hence  no 
external  ordinance  is  of  any  importance  except 
so  far  as  it  affects  the  heart.  If  the  heart  is 
right  with  God,  the  main  point  is  gained,  all  is 
gained.  God  accepts  your  services  though  ac- 
companied with  many  unallowed  imperfections ; 
and  under  the  gracious  system  which  he  has 
established,  appoints  a  glorious  reward.'    This 


68  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

is  the  gospel.     This  is  the  simplicity  of  its  aim^ 
and  the  simplicity  of  its  proceedings. 

These  things,  every  spiritual  worshipper 
of  God  must  allow,  are  the  grand  features 
of  the  gospel.  The  ordinances  of  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  indicative,  the  for- 
mer of  regeneration,  and  the  latter  of  union 
with  Christ,  or  progressive  sanctification.  In 
whatever  way  they  are  celebrated  the  same 
things  are  held  forth,  and  they  deeply  affect 
the  heart.  But  to  exalt  one  external  ordinance 
so  much — an  ordinance  too  which  is  had  but 
once  in  a  man's  life  : — to  exalt  that  so  much  as 
to  debar  from  another  which  is  of  frequent  oc- 
currence, and  which  takes  hold  more  of  the 
affections  of  the  heart  than  any  thing  else, 
preaching  alone  excepted,  is  surely  departing 
from  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  To  say  that 
the  Lord's  Supper,  which  in  its  effect  upon  the 
heart  constitutes  the  very  soul  of  Christianity, 
shall  be  confined  to  those  who  have  once  in 
their  lives  submitted  to  one  form  rather  than 
another,  of  external  washing,  is  to  bring  in 
something  else  besides  conversion  to  God  and 
continued  sanctification,  as  the  object  of  the 
gospel.  It  is  to  become  mere  Judaizing  teach- 
ers, exalting  the  ceremonies  above  the  sub- 
stance. It  is  turning  the  glorious  liberty  of 
the  gospel  into  the  bondage  of  the  law.  It  is 
lowering  down  that  sublime  declaration  of  our 
Saviour,  "  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  wor- 
ship him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth." 


CLOSE    COMPrlUNION.  69 

To  say  that  God  commands  immersion  is 
taking  for  granted  the  thing  to  be  proved.  It 
surely  is  a  presumption  against  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  command  to  baptize,  that  it  leads 
to  such  results  as  have  been  mentioned.  And 
it  is  no  less  a  presumption  against  that  inter- 
pretation that  almost  all  intelligent  and  holy 
readers  of  the  scriptures  do  not  understand  it 
so ;  and  amongst  the  rest,  the  very  translators 
themselves  of  our  Bible ;  for  they,  you  know, 
practised  sprinkling  for  baptism.  Should  there 
be  a  mistake  here,  and  to  say  the  least  it  is  pos- 
sible there  is,  those  who  exclude  such  as  Christ 
receives,  from  the  Lord's  table,  are  guilty  of  a 
gross  breach  of  his  commands — a  violation  of 
the  law  of  love  at  the  very  spot  where  love  is 
specially  to  be  shown,  besides  departing  from 
"the  simplicity  of  the  gospel. 

IV.  Close  communion  is  productive  of  self- 
righteousness  and  a  sectarian  spirit. 

I  do  not  say  that  all  who  act  under  that  sen- 
timent partake  of  the  spirit  now  mentioned.  I 
bring  no  accusations.  I  only  say  that  such  is 
its  tendency.  And  when  we  act  upon  a  princi- 
ple whose  tendency  is  in  a  particular  direction, 
we  are  in  special  danger  of  being  so  affected 
by  it.  In  so  far  as  real  piety  is  absent  or  defi- 
cient, that  tendency  must  take  effect.  Who 
does  not  know  that  mankind  have  always  had 
an  inclination  to  rely  on  external  things  rather 
than  on  the  spirituality  of  religion  1  In  Eng- 
land whole  communities  have  gone  over  to  this 
destructive  principle ;  so  that,  as  a  late  writer 


70  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

observes,  the  religion  of  the  church  of  England 
is  little  else  than  a  system  of  civilized  decen- 
cies. The  faithful  preacher  of  the  gospel  is 
obliged  to  guard  against  an  undue  reliance  upon 
external  things  at  every  step  of  his  progress. 
How  then  can  he  make  that  caution  felt  when 
the  very  head  and  front  of  his  own  doctrine  is, 
that  except  ye  are  washed  with  a  particular 
quantity  of  water,  ye  cannot  partake  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  according 
to  his  appointment  ?  Is  it  possible  for  men  in 
ordinary  circumstances,  without  more  counter- 
acting things  than  you  can  rationally  expect  to 
find,  to  avoid  a  degree  of  self-righteousness 
which  mars  their  christian  character?  And 
how  can  a  sectarian  spirit  be  avoided  without 
more  grace  than  is  ordinarily  possessed  ?  The 
consistent  close  communionist  must  wage  a  war 
of  extermination  against  christians  of  every 
name,  but  his  own.  If  all  others  are  unbapti- 
zed  and  actually  profaning  the  ordinances  of 
God ;  must  it  not  be  a  virtue  in  his  estimation 
to  diminish  the  numbers  and  exhaust  the  resour- 
ces of  other  denominations  as  much  as  he  can  ? 
Can  he  entertain  any  thing  but  war  in  his  bo- 
som towards  others  ?  At  least  can  he  feel  oth- 
erwise than  called  upon  to  fight  them  with  the 
same  spirit  that  he  would  the  world  ?  I  do  not 
say  that  the  brethren  of  close  communion  prin- 
ciples  always  do  act  thus.  Thanks  to  God, 
there  is  a  glorious  inconsistency  and  a  happy 
contradiction  in  all  good  men  when  they  adopt 
erroneous  principles.     But  though  all  this  may 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  71 

not  be  universal,  is  not  th'e  tendency  of  the  prin- 
ciple such  that  it  may  always  be  expected,  ex- 
cept in  special  circumstances  of  devoted  piety  ? 

Accordingly,  it  is  so  common  that  it  has  ceas- 
ed to  excite  surprise,  that  men  of  this  descrip- 
tion openly  accuse  us  of  insincerity  because  we 
do  not  conform  to  them.  They  tell  us  that  we 
do  not  believe  that  our  mode  of  baptism  is  right, 
and  that  we  do  not  believe  that  our  practice  of 
administering  it  to  infants  is'  right.  If  we  do 
hot,  then  are  we  hypocrites  indeed  ;  and  hypo- 
crites of  the  basest  kind.  If  there  is  any  thing 
sacred  in  all  my  religious  convictions,  and  which 
I  think  is  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  it  is  these 
points,  baptism  by  sprinkling  and  the  baptism 
of  infants.  If  men  will  give  me  no  credit  for 
my  declarations,  I  cannot  help  it.  God  is  my 
judge. 

Now  is  not  this  uncharitableness  and  sectari- 
anism, almost  wholly  confined  to  close  com- 
munionism,  or  at  least  to  exclusive  pretentions 
like  it?  How  then  can  we  avoid  looking  to 
that  as  in  part  the  cause  ?  Would  a  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  christian  ordinances  lead  to  such 
a  result?  Can  men  in  their  senses  dispute  the 
sincerity  of  whole  classes  of  men,  when  all  hands 
agree,  that  those  classes  show  as  much  of  the 
spirit  of  Christianity  as  any  others  ?  When  those 
classes  are  distinguished  for  going  forward  in  all 
the  benevolent  plans  of  the  day  ;  and  when  God 
pours  out  his  Spirit  upon  them  in  copious  effu- 
sions :  shall  a  sober  man  say  that  they  are  con- 
stantly in  the  habit  of  doing  what  they  know  to 


72  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

be  wrong  ?  No  man  under  the  dominion  of  that 
christian  love  which  hopeth  all  things,  endureth 
all  things,  believeth  all  things,  rejoiceth  not  in 
inquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truth,  can  say  so. 

V.  Close  communion  is  inconsistent  with 
other  things  allowed  by  its  advocates. 

On  this  point  I  shall  be  brief,  having  already 
partially  brought  it  to  view  in  another  part  of 
my  discourse.  They  allow  me  and  my  breth- 
ren to  be  ministers  of  Christ.  Not  unfrequent- 
ly  do  they  pray  for  us  in  the  public  assembly 
as  such.  They  allow  that  our  churches  are 
churches  of  Christ.  They  invite  us  to  preach 
the  gospel  in  their  pulpits.  They  ppay  to  God 
that  he  would  bless  our  preaching,  and  bless 
the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made 
us  overseers.  They  admit  that  we  are  going 
to  heaven  as  truly  as  they.  And  then  in  the 
face  of  all  this  and  as  it  were  with  the  very 
same  breath,  refuse  us  a  seat  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord.  What !  ministers  of  Christ  not  commu- 
nicants !  ministers  of  Christ  not  members  of 
the  church  !  And  can  they  commune  with  us 
in  all  the  acts  of  the  christian  life  and  of  the 
ministry  too,  and  yet  the  moment  the  table  of 
our  common  faith  and  common  sympathies  is 
spread,  cry  out,  Depart  from  us  ?  There  must 
be  somethino^  wroncr  where  such  absurdities 
and  inconsistencies  are  involved. 

VI.  The  last  particular  in  regard  to  close 
communion  which  I  shall  now  mention  is,  that 
it  is  eminently  contrary  to  the  plain  teachings 
of  the  Bible. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  73 

There  were  differences  of  opinion  in  the 
church  of  Christ  while  the  apostles  were  alive. 
And  such  was  the  force  of  prejudice  that  even 
they  could  not  settle  the  questions  to  the  satis- 
faction of  all.  These  differences  were  not  about 
things  on  which  the  apostles  had  formed  no 
opinions.  They  were  upon  subjects  on  which 
the  apostles  were  decided.  There  were  those 
who  taught  that  christians  should  be  circumcis- 
ed and  keep  the  law  of  Moses  ;  and  there  were 
those  who  declared  that  eating  meats  offered  to 
idols  was  sinful ;  and  others  who  denied  both 
these  propositions — of  which  latter  party  were 
the  apostles  themselves.  What  directions  then, 
in  these  circumstances,  did  the  apostles  give  ? 
Did  they  say,  hold  different  communions  ?  Cer- 
tainly not.  "  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  anoth- 
er as  Christ  also  received  us  to  the  glory  of 
God."  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,"  that 
is,  him  who  does  not  see  things  exactly  as 
you  do,  "  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  dispu- 
tations." 

Nothing  is  more  clear  from  the  Bible  than 
that  the  church  of  God  is  one  body.  Shall 
this  body  be  divided  more  than  differences  of 
opinion  necessarily  imply?  Shall  one  say,  I 
am  of  Paul,  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  and  an- 
other, I  am  of  Cephas,  and  set  up  different 
communion  tables,  and  debar  each  other  from 
them  ?  If  then  our  Churches  belong  to  Christ 
as  parts  of  his  body,  other  churches  have  no 
right  to  forbid  them  the  nourishment  which  be- 
longs to  the  whole. 


74  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

The  scripture,  moreover,  divides  men  into 
two  classes  the  saint  and  the  sinner.  All  the 
privileges  of  the  church  are  conferred  on  the 
saint.  Who  then  can  deprive  him  of  them  and 
be  guiltless  ? 

But  the  whole  subject  is  clearly  decided  in 
the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans. In  that  chapter  Paul  insists  upon  chris- 
tians receiving  one  another,  but  not  to  doubtful 
disputations.  The  principle  laid  down  is,  that 
diflerences  of  opinion  and  of  practice  in  regard 
to  that  which  is  not  fundamental  to  christian 
character,  should  not  interrupt  communion. 
The  particular  example  is  the  eating  of  meats. 
One  part  of  the  church  at  Rome  was  strong  in 
the  opinion  that  this  was  a  matter  of  indifference; 
the  other,  that  it  was  a  matter  of  consequence. 
The  former  were  disposed  to  make  light  of  the 
conscientious  scruples  of  the  latter  ;  and  the  lat- 
ter thought  the  former  were  profane  in  their  no- 
tions. But  the  apostle  decides  that  whatever 
opinion  or  practice  is  had  on  these  points,  they 
must  receive  one  another.  And  surely  this  re- 
ceiving must  comprehend  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table  ;  for  it  is  a  notion  wholly  unknown 
to  the  ancient  church  that  christians  can  receive 
one  another  as  christians,  and  yet  reject  one 
another  at  the  very  point  where  that  distinguis- 
ing  characteristic  is  specially  recognized,  to 
wit,  the  commemoration  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  the  communion  of  saints  there  had. 

Now  we  know  that  the  scriptures  teach  by 
way  of  laying  down  principles ;  and  all  cases 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  75 

that  are  comprehended  under  those  principles, 
whether  explicitly  mentioned  or  not,  are  inclu- 
ded in  the  instructions  which  they  give. 

Take  the  case  then  before  us,  and  see  if  it  be 
not  clearly  decided  by  the  principles  which  the 
apostle  lays  down.  We  are  conscientious  in 
our  belief  that  the  baptism  we  have  received, 
whether  in  infancy  or  in  adult  years,  is  valid — 
is  agreeable  to  the  mind  of  Christ.  If  we  are 
disobedient,  as  our  brethren  allege,  we  are  not 
wilfully  so.  According  to  the  best  of  our  knowl- 
edge we  are  fully  persuaded  in  our  own  minds. 
They  likewise  are  conscientious.  They  are 
fully  persuaded  in  their  minds.  What  shall  be 
done  ?  Shall  we  receive  one  another  as  fellow 
christians,  and  for  a  little  while  bury  our  differ- 
ences in  our  love  to  a  common  Lord  at  his  table  ? 

One  part  of  the  church  at  Rome  were  con- 
scientious in  their  belief  that  there  was  a  dis- 
tinction between  meats,  and  held  it  wrong  to 
eat  such  as  were  offered  to  idols.  The  other 
part  were  conscientious  in  their  belief  that  no 
such  distinction  existed,  and  that  it  was  right  to 
eat  all  sorts  of  meat  as  convenience  should  dic- 
tate. If  the  class  that  ate  were  disobedient,  as 
their  brethren  alleged,  they  were  not  wilfully 
so.  According  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge 
they  were  fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds. 
The  class  that  ate  not,  were  likewise  conscien- 
tious. They  were  fully  persuaded  in  their  own 
minds.  What  shall  be  done  ?  Shall  they  re- 
ceive one  another  as  fellow  christians  and  for  a 
little  while  bury  their  differences  in  their  love 


76  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

to  a  common  Lord  I  The  apostle  says  Yes, 
and  insists  upon  it. 

Here  then  you  have  before  you  the  case  as  it 
exists  at  the  present  day,  and  as  it  existed  in 
Paul's  day.  What  is  the  difference  ?  By  what 
principle  can  you  justify  the  apostle  in  his  de- 
cision of  the  case  in  the  shape  in  which  it  came 
before  him,  and  yet  insist  upon  a  different  de- 
cision as  the  case  now  stands  ?  If  those  whom 
you  acknowledge  to  be  christians  conscientious- 
ly differ  from  you  on  some  point  of  external 
order ;  will  you  reject  them,  and  treat  them  as 
heathen  men  or  mere  men  of  the  world  1  Will 
you  tell  them,  *  We  cannot  receive  you  because 
there  is  one  point  in  relation  to  an  external  rite  in 
which  your  practice  is  different  from  ours  ?'  For 
the  same  reason  exactly  could  one  part  of  the 
church  at  Rome  reject  the  other  whose  practice 
in  regard  to  an  external  matter  was  different 
from  theirs.  If  in  the  one  case  it  is  right  to  re- 
ject a  believer  in  Christ,  it  is  right  in  the  other. 
But  the  apostle  has  expressly  decided  that  it  is 
wrong  in  the  case  which  existed  in  the  church 
at  Rome.  How  then  can  it  be  right  in  the  case 
which  exists  in  the  modern  church  of  God  ? 
Does  not  the  apostle  then  absolutely  forbid  the 
practice  of  close  communion  in  the  church  of 
Christ  ?  "  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive 
ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations." 

It  is  remarkable  what  little  importance  is  at- 
tached in  the  scriptures  to  the  mode  of  any  ex- 
ternal ordinance.  We  are  commanded  to  pray ; 
but  we  are  not  told  whether  we  shall  kneel  or 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  77 

stand,  or  fall  prostrate.  We  are  commanded  to 
preach  ;  but  we  are  not  told  whether  we  shall 
sit  down  when  we  preach,  as  the  Saviour  and 
the  apostles  did,  or  whether  we  shall  stand  as 
the  modern  practice  is.  We  are  commanded 
to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but  we  are  not 
told  whether  we  shall  recline  on  beds  as  the 
Saviour  and  his  apostles  did,  or  whether  we 
shall  kneel  as  the  church  of  England  does,  or 
whether  we  shall  sit  around  a  table  as  some 
Presbyterians  do,  or  whether  we  shall  sit  in  our 
places  as  we  do.  All  these  things  are  totally 
unessential.  Now  if  baptism  be  so  explicitly 
described  as  to  its  mode  as  the  advocates  of 
close  communion  declare,  it  is  the  only  external 
ordinance  that  is.  It  is  an  anomaly  in  the 
christian  institutions.  It  is  clear  I  think  that, 
like  all  the  other  external  ordinances,  it  is  not 
the  mode  which  is  commanded,  but  only  the 
thing. 

To  be  received  then,  by  those  who  practice 
close  communion  a  man  who  has  been  baptized 
by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  must  not  only  come 
to  an  entire  conformity  of  opinion  with  them, 
but  he  must  actually  renounce  what  he  consci- 
entiously believes  to  be  his  baptism  agreeably 
to  the  command  of  Christ.  Is  not  this  a  much 
stronger  case  than  the  one  under  the  apostle's 
eye  at  Rome?  Is  not  this  requiring  much 
more  than  the  advocates  of  a  promiscuous  eat- 
ing of  meats  would  have  required,  had  they 
demanded  of  the  others  conformity  in  opinion 
and  in  practice  ?  Surely  then  the  principle  of 
7* 


78  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

close  communion  is  not  only  wrong  in  itself  as 
tending  to  divide  the  body  of  Christ,  but  it  is 
absolutely  forbidden  by  the  Bible. 

From  all  that  has  been  said  I  cannot  avoid 
the  conclusion,  that  Congregationalism  bears 
the  marks  of  scriptural  excellence,* 

The  more  I  examine  and  act  upon  the  prin- 
ciples of  Congregationalism,  the  more  I  love 
them,  not  as  Congregationalism,  but  as  Chris- 
tianity— as  pure,  unadulterated  Christianity.  It 
is  more  like  the  simple  Christianity  of  the  New 
Testament  than  any  other  system  to  be  found. 
It  has  no  watch-word,  nothing  to  rally  the  spirit 
of  a  party.  It  matters  not  whether  you  pro- 
nounce Shibboleth  or  Sibboleth,  you  are  alike 
welcome  to  its  embrace.  Other  systems  have 
something  peculiar  which  occupies  the  time  of 
its  advocates  to  defend,  and  which  is  so  promi- 
nent as  to  throw  into  the  shade  the  great  doc- 
trines of  reconciliation  to  God.  In  Episcopacy, 
for  example,  there  is  the  divine  right  of  bishops, 
and  "the  excellent  liturgy,"  around  which  its 
friends  rally  as  something  distinctive,  and  which 
some  of  them  carry  so  far  as  to  unchurch  ev- 
ery one  who  does  not  come  to  their  standard. 
Methodism  has  its  "  sainted  Wesley,"  and  its 
Book  of  Discipline,  and  its  system  of  attack 
upon  us.     The  Baptist  scheme  has  its  immer- 

*  The  same  argument  can  be  advanced  with  the 
same  force  by  a  Presbyterian,  except  by  one  of  the  high 
church  party ;  for  as  Presbyterianism  is  generally  re- 
ceived, it  does  not  diflfer  in  this  respect  from  Congrega- 
tionalism. 


CLOSE    COMMUNION.  79 

sion,  and  consequent  close  communion,  and  an- 
tipedobaptism,  to  hold  up  as  its  distinguishing 
features,  and  the  rallying  point  of  its  friends. 
But  Congregationalism — what  has  that  ?  It  has 
nothing  but  Christ  crucified,  the  great  points  of 
Christianity  by  which  it  is  distinguished.  So 
notorious  is  this  fact  that  our  people  are  fre- 
quently seduced  from  their  principles  before 
they  know  them.  Some  one  point  on  which 
these  different  sects  are  generally  harping,  is 
brought  forward  with  an  appearance  of  truth, 
and  the  inexperienced  and  unwary  have  seldom, 
if  ever,  heard  it  discussed  in  public.  We  are 
occupied  with  other  things :  whereas,  these 
sects,  since  the  points  of  differences  from  us 
are  all  by  which  they  stand,  are  constantly 
holding  them  up  and  giving  their  views.  And 
they  sometimes  represent  that  our  preaching 
so  seldom  upon  the  same  points  arises  from  our 
inability  to  defend  ourselves.  By  such  means 
some  are  deceived. 

Congregationalism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the 
anti-sectarian  sect.  It  is  occupied  in  leading 
men  to  Christ ;  and  when  we  step  aside  from 
this  main  point,  it  is  not  for  attack  upon  others, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  showing  our  people  how 
much  truth  they  really  have,  and  of  keeping 
them  in  the  simple  way,  unincumbered  by  for- 
eign mixtures,  which  the  Bible  holds  forth.  We 
set  up  no  Shibboleth — we  invite  to  no  party- 
feeling — we  rally  around  no  standard  but  that 
of  Christ ;  and  we  come  forth  in  the  liberty  of 
the  gospel  to  a  full  and  free  pouring  out  of  our 


80  CLOSE    COMMUNION. 

souls  on  the  broad  ground  of  the  common  Chris- 
tianity, with  a  hope  and  a  joy  which  nothing 
can  take  from  us. 

In  the  true  spirit  of  Congregationalism,  as 
the  spirit  of  the  noble,  the  enlarged,  the  liberal 
Christianity  of  the  New  Testament,  I  call  on 
all  who  read  this,  to  seek  the  Lord  God  of  their 
fathers  this  day.  He  is  the  God  whom  we 
serve-:-the  God  who  set  up  our  churches  and 
who  watches  over  them  with  a  fatherly  care. 
Our  doctrine  is,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  ye  shall  be  saved.  Give  us  evi- 
dence that  this  is  the  fact ;  and  we  welcome 
you  to  the  communion  of  saints,  and  to  the 
comforts  and  peace  which  we  enjoy.  Let  Christ 
be  formed  in  you  the  hope  of  glory.  If  you 
now  see  that  you  are  sinful  creatures,  and  need 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  make  no 
delay.  To  day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden 
not  your  hearts.  Wait  not  for  more  conviction 
— wait  not  for  more  fitness — come  now  to  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  be  happy.  If  thou  confess 
with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  believe  in 
thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  thou  shall  be  saved. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  81 

DISCOURSE  III, 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 


1  Cor.  vii.  14. 

"  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband : 
else  were  your  children  unclean ;  but  now  are  they 


We  are  told  by  the  opposers  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism that  the  doctrine  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible. 
The  ground  they  assume  is,  that  there  is  no 
express  precept  for  it  in  the  New  Testament ; 
and  they  insist  that  that  must  be  had  for  a  posi- 
tive institution.  But  they  leave  this  ground  in 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye  when  they  come  to 
other  institutions  of  a  positive  kind.  There  is 
no  express  precept  for  baptism  as  a  prerequisite 
to  the  communion;  yet  they  claim  that  it  is 
taught  in  scripture.  There  is  no  express  pre- 
cept for  females  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper; 
yet  they  claim  that^they  should  on  the  authority 
of  scripture.  There  is  no  express  precept  for 
the  Christian  Sabbath  ;  yet  they  hold  to  its  ob- 
ligation. There  is  no  express  precept  for  fami- 
ly prayer;  yet  they  acknowledge  the  duty  as 
taught  in  the  Bible.  There  is  no  express  pre- 
cept for  the  public  worship-  of  God  ;  yet  they 
believe  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Bible.  Why 
then  should   all  these   thintrs  be  received  as 


82  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

taught  in  scripture  without  an  express  precept, 
and  yet  Infant  Baptism  be  rejected  as  not  taught 
in  scripture  when  it  stands  on  the  same  ground, 
and  has  no  more  deficiency  of  evidence  than  all 
these  things  ?  Reasoning  surely  is  good  for 
nothing,  if  it  be  not  consistent  with  itself.  A 
principle  which  cuts  off  one  doctrine  will  cut 
off  all  others  which  come  under  it.  And  to  say 
that  we  will  receive  such  doctrines  as  we  please 
without  an  express  precept,  and  then  reject 
others  because  they  are  alike  without  an  ex- 
press precept,  is  too  manifestly  absurd  to  main- 
tain for  a  moment.  It  is  to  receive,  for  the 
same  reason  that  we  reject ;  to  believe,  for  the 
same  reason  that  we  disbelieve.  And  yet  this 
is  precisely  the  ground  upon  which  opposition 
to  Infant  Baptism  is  maintained.  It  furnishes 
another  proof  of  the  inconsistency  into  which 
good  men  always  fall  when  they  adopt  errone- 
ous principles.  If  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism is  revealed  in  the  scriptures,  it  does  not 
become  us  to  say  how  it  shall  be  revealed,  wheth- 
er by  express  precept,  or  in  some  other  way. 
We  ought  to  be  content  with  the  evidence  that 
God  is  pleased  to  give  us,  especially  if  it  be  of 
the  same  kind  as  he  gives  us  on  other  points  of 
acknowledged  importance,  which  we  hold  to  be 
true. 

The  evidence  for  Infant  Baptism  is  so  abun- 
dant from  Ecclesiastical  history,  that  not  a  soli- 
tary ancient  writer  can  be  found  who  suggests 
a  doubt  as  to  its  universal  'prevalence  in  the 
church  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  his  own 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  83 

time.  Origin  who  was  born  before  the  close 
of  the  second  century,  expressly  says  that  the 
church  received  an  order  from  the  apostles  to 
baptize  little  children,  and  he  speaks  also  of 
the  usage  of  the  church  to  baptize  infants. 
Cyprian  who  lived  about  the  same  time,  men- 
tions, that  the  question  came  up  in  an  Ecclesi- 
astical council  whether  baptism  might  be  ad- 
ministered to  infants  immediately  after  their 
birth,  or  whether  it  should  be  delayed,  in  allu- 
sion to  circumcision,  till  they  were  eight  days 
old.  Not  a  doubt,  it  appears,  did  any  one  en- 
tertain as  to  the  propriety  of  the  practice.  It 
was  only  whether  it  should  be  exactly  conform- 
ed to  circumcision  in  regard  to  the  time.  Au- 
gustine, one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the 
ancient  fathers,  and  who  lived  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury declares,  that  "  the  whole  church  practises 
Infant  Baptism.  It  was  not  instituted  by  Coun- 
cils, but  was  always  in  use."  He  declares  also 
that  he  never  knew  any  one  deny  this.  Pela- 
gius  who  maintained  a  controversy  with  him  on 
some  doctrines,  and  was  reproached  with  invol- 
ving the  denial  of  Infant  Baptism,  in  the  argu- 
ments he  adduced,  explicitly  rejected  the'charge, 
and  said,  that  "  he  never  heard  of  any  one,  even 
the  most  impious  heretic,  who  asserted  that  in- 
fants were  not  to  be  baptized."  Pelagius  was 
born  in  Great  Britain,  and  traveled  through 
France,  Italy,  and  Africa,  to  Jerusalem.  He 
was  moreover  greatly  skilled  in  the  history  of 
the  church,  and  being  so  near  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  must  have  had  some  opportunity  to 


84  INFANT    BAPTISM, 

know,  if  the  fact  were  contrary  to  his  decla- 
ration. 

These  testimonies  in  regard  to  a  matter  of 
fact  are  certainly  of  some  importance.  I  am 
persuaded  that  our  opponents,  could  they  ad- 
duce them  on  their  side  of  the  question,  would 
make  much  of  them.  Especially  as  they  dwell 
much  on  what  Tertullian  says,  who  advised  the 
delay  of  baptism,  but  never  questioned  the  uni- 
versal usage  of  the  church,  nor  the  divine  au- 
thority of  that  usage.  The  very  advice  he  gives 
is  bottomed  professedly  on  his  own  individual 
opinion,  and  on  the  fact  that  infants  were  uni- 
versally, and  always  had  been,  baptized.  So 
that  it  amounts  to  a  confirmation  of  the  other 
testimony.  Tertullian  did  not  confine  his  ad- 
vice to  the  delay  of  baptism  in  the  case  of  in- 
fants, but  extended  it  also  to  unmarried  per- 
sons. And  it  is  just  as  good  in  one  case  as  in 
the  other.  In  both  cases  it  is  opposed,  by 
his  own  showing,  to  the  universal  usage  of  the 
church. 

It  was  the  conviction  of  the  whole  church  in 
its  purest  and  best  times,  that  infants  are  bapti- 
zed according  to  the  appointment  of  Christ. 
And  this  conviction  did  not  cease  to  be  universal 
till  eleven  centuries  had  elapsed. 

It  is  not  my  object,  however,  to  dwell  upon 
the  testimony  of  Eclesiastical  history  to  the  di- 
vine authority  of  Infant  Baptism,  copious  and 
overwhelming  as  it  is.  I  intend  to  reason  with 
you  out  of  the  scriptures ;  and  to  inquire  wheth- 
er, according  to  all  rational  principles  of  inter- 


INFANT    BAPTIS-M.  8& 

pretation,  it  does  not  appear  from  the  Bible  that 
the  baptism  of  believers'  children  on  the  parents' 
account  is  agreeable  to  the  mind  of  Christ. 

Many  are  prevented  from  a  candid  examina- 
tion of  this  subject  by  meeting  at  the  thresh- 
old with  what  they  deem  a  scriptural  argument 
against  it — I  mean  the  requisition  of  faith  as 
something  previous  to  baptism.  "  He  that  be- 
iieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved" — "  If 
thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayest 
ifce."  It  is  necessary  therefore  to  examine  this 
point  at  the  outset,  that  we  may  be  prepared  to 
enter  upon  the  subject  with  candor,  and  look  at 
it  with  the  eyes  of  those  who  understand  the 
language  of  the  scriptures. 

Of  whom  then  do  the  scriptures  require  faith 
as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism  ?  Surely  you 
will  say,  of  such  as  are  capable  of  exercising 
it,  that  is,  of  adults.  The  argument  then  is, 
that  adults  only  are  fit  subjects  for  baptism. 
But  this  is  stepping  too  fast  because  it  will 
prove  that  adults  only  were  fit  subjects  for 
circumcision  ; — contrary  to  the  known  fact. 
If  any  proselytes  came  over  to  the  true  reli- 
gion, under  the  ancient  dispensation  they 
were  required  to  believe  in  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham ;  and  this  belief  being  ascertained,  they  re- 
ceived the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith 
which  was  circumcision.  But  does  this  prove 
that  infants  were  excluded  ?  No  adult  could  be 
circumcised  without  professing  faith  in  God ; 
and  yet  infants  were  circumcised  without  faith. 
The  faith  then  which  was  required,  was  re- 
8 


86  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

quired  only  of  adults,  while  at  the  same  tirii6' 
infants  were  not  excluded  from  that  rite  to  which 
faith  was  a  prerequisite.  Does  it  look  like  good 
reasoning  then  to  say,  that  because  faith  is  re- 
quired of  adults  as  a  qualification  for  baptism, 
therefore  infants  have  no  right  to  that  ordi- 
nance? What  have  infants  to  do  with  com- 
mands which  respect  adults  only?  It  appears 
then,  that  under  both  dispensations,  the  old  and 
the  new,  faith  is  required  of  adults  as  a  qualifi- 
cation for  receiving  ihe  initiatory  rite;  and  it  is 
certain  that  under  the  old,  infants  who  are  inca- 
pable of  faith,  were  admitted  to  that  rite.  How 
then  does  the  requisition  of  faith  in  the  case  of 
the  new  dispensation,  prove  that  infants  are  to 
be  excluded  from  its  initiatory  rite  any  more 
than  in  the  old  ?  Must  we  not  look  somewhere 
else  for  this  point,  rather  than  to  this  naked  fact? 
And  then  too,  is  believing  represented  as  any 
more  necessary  for  baptism  than  it  is  for  salva- 
tion ?  Nay,  is  it  not  expressly  said,  "  He  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned?"  According  to 
the  method  of  interpretation  which  makes  faith 
necessary  for  baptism  in  all  cases,  faith  is  ne- 
cessary for  salvation  in  all  cases.  Hence  in- 
fants who  are  incapable  of  faith  are  lost  forever — 
all  of  them.  Faith  is  necessary  for  baptism  and 
it  is  necessary  for  salvation.  If  no  one  can  be 
baptized  without  faith,  then  no  one  can  be  sa- 
ved without  faith.  If  the  incapability  of  faith 
proves  the  incapability  of  baptism,  it  proves  al- 
so the  incapability  of  salvation.  The  argument 
then  proves  too  much ;  for  it  proves  the  dam- 


INFANT    RAPTI.sM.  87 

iialioii  of  all  who  die  in  infancy-  Will  onr  Bap- 
list  brethren  abide  by  this  ?  If  they  will  not, 
then  they  must  abandon  the  reasoning  which 
unavoidably  leads  to  it. 

Much  more  indeed  is  this  argument  opposed 
to  infant  salvation  than  it  is  to  infant  baptism, 
because  the  text  we  are  examining  expressly 
says,  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned  ;" 
whereas  it  does  not  say,  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  not  be  baptized.  It  merely  says,  "  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved" — two 
things  believing  and  baptizing  as  matters  of  fact, 
without  declaring  in  what  order  they  shall  take 
place.  As  if  I  should  say  of  myself.  If  I  be- 
lieve and  am  baptized  I  shall  be  saved.  The 
question  then  is,  do  I  believe,  and  am  I  bapti- 
zed ?  I  answer  both  these  questions  in  the  af- 
firmative and  am  satisfied.  It  is  then  merely  a 
declaration  of  a  fact  as  to  a  man's  being  a  bapti- 
zed person,  not  a  proposal  for  that  fact  to  take 
place  at  a  future  period. 

You  see  then,  my  brethren?  that  we  have  no 
authority  from  this  passage  to  say  that  faith  is 
required  in  all  cases  in  the  subjects  of  baptism, 
because  then  on  the  same  principle,  we  must 
say  that  faith  was  required  in  all  cases  in  the 
subjects  of  circumcision,— which  would  be  con- 
trary to  fact  as  admitted  by  all ;  and  because 
faith  is  no  more  required  for  baptism  than  it  is 
for  salvation.  And  as  it  is  acknowledged  that 
it  does  not  concern  infants  in  the  latter  case,  so 
it  cannot  in  the  former.  And  moreover  the 
text  declares  the  state  of  a  fact  rather  than  the 


88  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

time  when  the  fact  shall  take  place.  Wheth- 
er infants  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism  must 
be  settled  by  other  considerations,  not  by  this 
text. 

So  also  when  faith  was  required  of  the  Ethi- 
opian eunuch,  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thine 
heart  thou  mayest ;"  for  he  was  an  adult,  pros- 
elyted to  Christianity,  and  of  course,  according 
to  immemorial  usage,  ought  to  receive  the  sign 
or  initiatory  rite.  Evidence  of  his  being  truly 
proselyted  must  be  demanded  also,  and  that  ev- 
idence is  his  faith.  Infants  have  nothing  to  do 
with  this  point  unless  the  Bible  says  that  they 
have.  The  requisition  of  faith  then  in  the  case 
of  adults — those  who  are  capable  of  exercising 
it,  does  not  prove  that  infants, — those  who  are  in- 
capable of  exercising  it,  must  be  excluded  from 
the  rite,  any  more  than  it  proves  that  they  must 
be  excluded  from  salvation  for  the  same  incapa- 
bility. There  surely  is  nothing  in  the  rite  itself 
which  forbids  the  admission  of  infanrts  to  it,  any 
more  than  there  was  in  circumcision.  And  since 
circumcision  was  applied  to  infants  who  had  no 
faith  although  adults  w^ere  required  to  believe ; 
instead  of  finding  an  argument  here  against  in- 
fant baptism,  there  is  a  presumption  in  its  fa- 
vour. It  does  not  appear  then  that  any  of  the 
requisitions  of  faith  as  a  prerequisite  of  baptism 
can  touch  the  case  of  infants  at  all.  They  re- 
late to  adults  only  who  have  not  been  the  sub- 
jects of  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  Christianity. 
The  case  of  infants  then  lies  open  to  inquiry 
from  other  parts  of  scripture. 


INFx\XT    BAPTISM.  89 

If  any  man  will  maintain  that  because  believ- 
ing must  be  before  baptizing  in  adults  who  have 
not  been  baptized,  therefore  infants  are  exclu- 
ded from  baptism ;  I  cannot  think  that  he  does 
ti  conscientiously,  unless  he  can  show  that  these 
plain  considerations  which  I  have  now  adduced, 
are  not  sound.  The  flippancy  of  remark  by 
which  a  man  can  set  aside  the  clearest  argu- 
ments by  a  firm  and  confident  assertion,  does 
not  become  a  conscientious  inquirer  after  truth. 
Passion  and  prejudice  should  have  nothing  to 
do  with  this  subject.  The  question  is.  What  is 
the  will  of  our  Divine  Master  ?  What  are  his 
institutions?  What,  according  to  the  plain  dic- 
tates of  common  sense,  is  the  meaning  of  his 
declarations? 

Having  thus  cleared  the  way  by  removing  an 
objection  plausible  at  first  sight,  but  vanishing 
upon  examination;  let  us  now  proceed  to  some 
considerations  which  satisfy  me  that  Infant  Bap- 
tism is  an  institution  of  Christ,  and  therefore 
ought  to  be  maintained  in  the  church. 

We  do  not  need  a  direct  command  in  the 
New  Testament.  All  that  we  ought  to  ask  for 
is  such  a  treatment  of  the  subject  as  shows  that 
it  was  recognised  by  the  apostles  as  a  part  of  the 
divine  institutions.  We  read  that  certain  men 
taught  the  brethren  that  they  must  be  circum- 
cised and  keep  the  law  of  Moses  ;  but  it  is  not 
said  that  they  taught  directly  that  children 
should  be  circumcised.  Such  teaching  was  not 
necessary,  because  the  circumcision  of  children 
was  an  essential  part  of  the  institution.  So  al- 
8* 


90  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

SO,  if  the  feelings  and  conduct  of  the  church  had 
always  been  in  favor  of  dedicating  infants  to 
God  by  an  external  sign,  which  is  granted  on  all 
hands  ;  all  that  is  necessary  for  proof  that  such 
dedication  must  be  continued,  is  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  ^ew  Testament  should  accord  to 
this  better  than  to  a  discontinuance  of  that  prac- 
tice. Since  the  practice  of  marking  infants  with 
the  external  sign  of  the  church,  the  initiatory 
rite,  had  always  obtained,  a  direct  prohibition  of 
it  is  necessary  to  authorize  us  to  discontinue  it. 
If  then  instead  of  a  prohibition  w^e  shall  find 
that  the  whole  language  of  the  New  Testament 
seems  to  imply  that  it  was  recognized  and  con- 
tinued by  inspired  men,  the  proof  will  be  suffi- 
cient. This  is  the  only  method  we  can  pursue 
in  proving  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  the 
Sabbath ;  that  females  should  celebrate  the 
Lord's  Supper ;  that  family  prayer  should  be 
observed  ;  and  that  the  assemblies  of  the  saints 
should  be  maintained  on  the  sabbath  for  the  pub- 
lic worship  of  God.  These  most  important  and 
fundamental  things  are  taught  in  this  manner 
in  the  New  Testament.  And  why  should  we 
not  be  satisfied  by  such  teaching  in?  regard  to 
Infant  Baptism  ? 

On  this  principle  then  v/e  will  look  at  th.e 
conduct  and  declarations  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  at  the  commission  which  he  gave  to  his 
apostles ;  and  at  their  conduct  and  declarations 
under  that  commission. 

In  the  first  place — Let  us  see  what  our  Lord 
said  and  did  with  reference  to  little  children. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  91 

One  action  of  his  life  is  thus  recorded  by  Mat- 
thew: "Then  were  brought  to  Jesus  little 
children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them 
and  pray;  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them.  But 
Jesus  said,  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them 
not  to  come  unto  me  ;  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them."  The  same  thing  is  recorded  substan- 
tially in  the  same  manner  by  Mark  and  Luke, 
INow  it  is  true  that  no  baptism  took  place  on 
this  occasion ;  and  it  would  have  been  mani- 
festly improper  because  the  gospel  dispensation 
was  not  yet  set  up,  and  christian  baptism  that 
is,  baptism  into  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  not  yet  in- 
stituted. The  argument  for  infant  baptism 
which  I  derive  from  this  passage  is,  the  treat- 
ment which  Christ  gave  to  these  children  in 
such  circumstances,  and  the  declaration  he 
made,  or  the  doctrine  he  laid  down.  It  seems 
to  have  been  the  dictate  of  parental  tenderness 
which  brought  these  little  children  to  Christ, 
and  in  conformity  to  the  usage  of  the  Jews  of 
considering  the  children  as  connected  with  the 
parents  in  religious  observances.  Now  if  Christ 
had  intended  to  change  this  usage,  and  in  his 
church  which  he  was  about  to  set  up,  no  longer 
to  recognize  little  children,  was  not  this  a  very 
singular  way  of  doing  it  ?  In  such  circumstan- 
ces he  contributed  to  strengthen  the  attachment 
of  the  Jews  to  bringing  their  children  forward 
in  religious  ordinances.  If  there  had  been  no 
such  custom  among  the  people  of  God,  the  case 


92  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

would  be  different;  but  since  there  was,  our 
Lord  seems  directly  to  sanction  it.  The  disci- 
ples, it  seems,  forbade  the  bringing  of  these  lit- 
tle children  to  Christ ;  but  he  says,  "  Suffer  them 
to  come  and  forbid  them  not."  It  must  be  re- 
marked that  they  did  not  come  themselves — 
they  were  brought ;  and  Luke  calls  them  infants. 
Our  Lord  then  directly  encouraged  such  chil- 
dren to  be  brought  to  him  for  his  blessing. 
Would  not  this  in  a  Jewish  community  tend  to 
sanction  the  commonly  received  notion  that  chil- 
dren should  be  recognized  with  their  parents  in 
religion,  and  be  dedicated  to  God  by  a  religious 
rite  ?  If  he  had  intended  to  abolish  that  custom, 
and  declare  that  his  kingdom  was  not  to  be  like 
the  old,  recognizing  infants  as  entitled  to  its 
privileges ;  would  not  this  have  been  a  favora- 
ble time  ta  give  the  hint  at  least,  certainly  not 
to  encourage  the  old  practice  ?  So  far  howev- 
er from  such  a  hint  he  expressly  says  that  no 
change  in  this  respect  is  to  take  place.  "  Of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  This  you  will 
observe  he  gives  as  a  reason  why  these  little 
children  should  be  brought  to  him.  The  argu- 
ment therefore  which  our  opponents  allege  that 
he  spake  only  of  the  disposition  of  little  chil- 
dren, or  such  as  were  like  little  children  as  be- 
longing to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  has  no  force; 
because  it  would  be  a  poor  reason  for  suffering 
these  little  children  to  come  to  him,  that  such  as 
resembled  them,  but  not  they  themselves  are  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven. 


INFANT  Baptism.  9*3 

The  phrase  the  Mngdom  of  heaven,  or  as 
the  other  evang-elists  have  it,  the  kingdom  of 
God,  all  admit  means  in  such  connexions,  the 
gospel  church  in  distinction  from  the  ancient 
dispensation  under  Moses.  As  for  example, 
Christ  preached,  "  Repent  ye  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  at  hand."  That  is,  the  gospel 
church  is  about  to  be  set  up.  And  so  also,  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  to  a  grain  of  mus- 
tard-seed which  grew  to  a  great  tree  ;  to  a  little 
leaven  which  was  cast  into  three  measures  of 
meal,  and  leavened  the  whole,  and  such  like 
comparisons  which  are  abundant — all  showing 
the  increase  of  the  gospel  church.  Now  such 
being  the  settled  sense  of  the  phrase  admitted 
on  all  hands,  these  little  children  that  were 
brought  to  Christ  and  others  like  them,  are  de- 
clared to  belong  to  the  gospel  church. — "  Of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  As  much  as 
to  say,  '  The  church  of  God  is  to  remain  the 
same  in  this  respect  as  heretofore.  Children 
are  to  be  recognized  as  they  always  have  been 
as  belonging  to  that  community.  Why  then 
do  you  forbid  them  coming  to  me  who  am  the 
Head  of  that  community?'  Nothing,  it  seems 
to  me,  can  be  plainer  than  that  our  Lord  meant 
here  fully  to  recognize  the  ancient  principle 
that  the  church  consists  of  parents  and  their 
children.  It  is  not  a  new  institution.  It  is  a 
mere  recognition  of  the  old ;  and  a  declaration 
of  its  perpetuity.  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  That  is,  such  are  the  members  of 
my  church,  or  to  such  the  church  belongs.     In 


94-  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

other  words,  such  are  entitled  to  its  privileges. 
If  then  they  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
or  the  gospel  church,  surely  they  are  entitled 
to  the  distinguishing  mark  of  that  church  which 
is  baptism.  They  are  entitled  to  be  recognized 
with  their  parents  as  set  apart  for  God,  and 
therefore  to  be  instructed  in  all  the  blessedness 
which  that  consecration  implies. 

Another  action  of  Christ  is  thus  recorded  by 
Mark :  "  And  he  took  a  child  and  set  him  in  the 
midst  of  them,  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in 
his  arms,  he  said  unto  them,  Whosoever  shall 
receive  one  of  such  little  children  in  my  name, 
receiveth  me  ;  and  whosoever  shall  receive  me, 
receiveth  not  me,  but  him  that  sent  me."  (ch. 
ix.  36,  37.)  This  was  said  by  our  Lord  to  re- 
buke the  ambition  of  his  disciples,  and  while 
it  had  reference  to  the  disposition  which  they 
ought  to  have,  it  evidently  brought  forward  the 
little  child  itself  as  of  such  consequence  in  his 
estimation  that  it  could  be  received  in  his  name, 
and  so  receiving  it  was  to  receive  him.  To  re- 
ceive a  person  in  the  name  of  Christ,  is  by  his 
own  definition  to  receive  him,  because  he  be- 
longs to  Christ.  Thus  :  "  Whosoever  shall 
give  you  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  drink  in  my 
name,  because  ye  belong  to  Christ."  Does  not 
then  such  a  recognition  of  a  little  child  as  be- 
longing to  him,  and  requiring  us  to  receive  it  in 
his  name,  plainly  imply  that  he  does  not  intend 
to  set  aside  the  ancient  usage  of  acknowledging 
such  little  children  in  the  initiatory  ordinance 
of  his  church?    Would  our  Saviour  speak  of 


INFANT    EAPTISrrf.  95 

receiving  little  children,  (viz.  such  as  he  took 
in  his  arms,)  in  his  name,  as  belonging  to  him, 
if  he  had  no  more  right  in  them  than  in  all  his 
creatures  ?  And  if  he  had  meant  to  set  aside 
the  membership  of  infants  in  the  church,  which 
was  then  universally  acknowledged,  would  he 
have  spoken  so  loosely  as  to  leave  the  idea  on 
the  minds  of  his  hearers,  that  the  recognition 
of  infants  as  specially  belonging  to  him  was  an 
unchangeable  principle  in  his  church  ? 

Now  our  Baptist  brethren  admit  that  infants 
were  acknowledged  as  members  of  the  church 
under  the  ancient  dispensation  by  the  authority 
of  God.  I  ask  then,  when  did  that  membership 
cease  /  The  only  way  they  have  to  answer 
this  question  is,  to  say  that  the  church  itself 
ceased  of  which  they  were  members  ;  and  that 
the  gospel  church  has  no  connexion  with  it.  If 
this  be  so,  why  have  we  no  notice  of  it  in  the 
Bible  ?  Why  did  the  Saviour  worship  with  the 
Jews  continually  and  recognize  their  institu- 
tions? And  why  did  the  apostles  the  same  till 
they  were  driven  off  by  persecution,  and  obli- 
ged to  set  up  a  separate  worship  ?  The  Baptist 
brethren  have  no  way  to  support  their  proposi- 
tion here  but  to  fall  upon  the  Old  Testament 
church  with  the  hand  of  violence,  and  degrade 
it  to  a  mere  political  institution.  They  select 
certain  things  that  were  peculiar  to  that  church, 
and  necessarily  abolished  at  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  and  represent  them  as  the  main  things. 
If  their  arguments  proved  any  thing  they  would 
prove  that  God  never  had  a  spiritual  church  in 


96  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  world  till  about  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago  ;  and  consequently,  all  those  ancient  saints, 
David,  Hezekiah,  Daniel,  Isaiah,  and  even  Abra- 
ham, if  they  belonged  to  any  church,  belonged 
to  one  that  did  not  require  the  service  of  the 
heart.  And  all  this  in  direct  contradiction  of 
the  apostle  who  says  that  Moses  esteemed  the 
reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  trea- 
sures of  Egypt,"  and  who  says  also,  that  the 
Ephesian  christians  were  "  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens  of  the  saints, 
and  of  the  household  of  God,"  and  then  imme- 
diately adds,  "  And  are  built  upon  the  founda- 
tion of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone."  Can 
that  church  in  which  "  the  reproach  of  Christ" 
was  had  be  essentially  different  from  the  Chris- 
tian church  ?  And  do  not  the  prophets  come 
in  as  well  as  the  apostles  in  Paul's  estimate  of 
the  church  of  Christ  ? 

What  then  shall  we  say  of  our  Lord's  conduct 
which  we  have  now  reviewed  ?  Does  it  look 
like  causing  the  membership  of  infants  to  cease 
in  the  church  ?  Compare  it  with  modern  times 
where  circumstances  somewhat  similar  are 
found.  The  admission  of  infants  to  the  sign 
of  the  christian  economy  baptism,  as  in  some 
sense  members  of  the  church,  is  now  practised 
by  the  whole  church  except  the  Baptist  depart- 
ment which  must  be  acknowledged  in  compari- 
son with  the  rest  to  be  but  small.  Do  those 
then  who  would  oppose  that  admission  treat 
the  subject  as  Christ  did  ?     Do  they  talk  of  re- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  97 

ceiving  a  little  child  in  Christ's  name  as  belong- 
ing to  him  ?  Do  they  insist  upon  little  children's 
being  brought  to  the  Saviour  because  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Would  this  be  the 
way  in  which  they  could  make  an  impression 
on  mankind  favorable  to  their  peculiar  views  ? 
They  find  this  church  relation  of  little  children 
generally  acknowledged  just  as  the  Saviour 
did.  Do  they  like  him  make  no  opposition  to 
it,  but  rather  sanction  it?  Do  they  not  rather 
oppose  it  with  all  their  might  as  contrary  to  the 
will  of  Christ  ?  And  in  doing  this  are  they  not 
obliged  to  resort  to  forced  constructions  of  the 
principles  adverted  to  which  are  laid  down  by 
our  Lord  ?  Answer  these  questions,  my  breth- 
ren, and  then  you  cannot  but  see  the  force  of 
the  argument  derived  from  our  Saviour's  con- 
xiuct  and  declarations. 

II.    We  pass  now  to  consider  the  commission 
which  Christ  gave  to  his  apostles. 

It  is  recorded  in  these  words  :  ^'  Go  ye,  there- 
fore, and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Or  as  it  might  be  rendered, 
*'  Make  disciples  of,  or  proselyte  all  nations 
baptizing  them,"  &c.  This  command  is  cer- 
tainly very  indefinite  in  regard  to  the  particular 
subjects  of  baptism  whether  adults  or  infants, 
or  both.  The  meaning  then  must  be  gathered 
from  the  circumstances  in  which  the  speaker 
and  the  hearers  were  placed.  This  is  a  fair 
rule  of  interpretation  necessarily  adopted  in 
regard  to  all  written  documents. 
9 


98  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

We  find  then  that  both  the  speaker  and  the 
hearers  were  Jews,  accustomed  to  the  connex- 
ion of  parents  and  children  in  the  church,  and 
to  the  application  of  a  religious  rite  to  the  latter 
in  token  of  that  connexion.  A.  new  rite  was 
now  adopted,  or  if  you  please,  an  old  one  put 
to  this  particular  use,  namely,  of  marking  the 
proselytes  to  the  christian  faith.  So  far  as 
it  marked  proselytes  to  the  faith,  it  must  be 
admitted  by  all  to  stand  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. The  Jews  had  long  been  accus- 
tomed to  make  proselytes  of  the  Pagan  nations 
and  to  mark  them  with  the  sign  of  circumcision 
in  token  of  their  renouncing  their  old  religion 
and  rece'iving  the  true.  This  mark  was  put 
both  upon  the  parents  and  the  children.  Now 
when  the  very  same  subject  is  introduced  to 
their  minds,  the  subject  of  proselyting,  and  the 
appHcation  of  a  religious  rite  to  the  proselytes, 
without,  separating  the  parents  from  the  chil- 
dren ;  is  it  not  the  only  way  that  they  would 
understand  it,  to  suppose  that  the  same  appli- 
cation was  to  be  had  as  that  to  which  they  had 
been  accustomed  ?  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  inquiry  is  not  how  this  commission  would 
be  understood  independently  of  all  previous 
usage,  but  how  the  apostles  would  understand 
it  in  their  circumstances.  If  baptism  was  now 
appointed  as  the  mark  to  be  put  upon  the  pros- 
elytes which  they  should  make  in  all  nations, 
would  they  not  naturally  understand  it  as  equal- 
ly extensive  with  the  former  rite,  in  its  applica- 
tion?    If  infants  were  to  be  excluded  from  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  99 

mark  whiclp.  proselytes  were  to  receive,  when 
they  never  had  been,  this  is  the  place  for  that  ex- 
clusion to  be  specified.  Since  it  was  not,  how  can 
we  suppose  the  apostles  to  have  done  violence  to 
all  their  previous  ideas  of  proselyting,  so  as  to 
understand  that  adults  only  were  to  receive  the 
mark?  Especially,  when  they  were  so  slow  to  un- 
derstand that  they  could  dispense  with  the  Jew- 
ish ceremonies  even  enough  to  eat  with  men 
of  another  nation  ?  To  persuade  them  of  this, 
even  after  the  glorious  day  of  Pentecost,  it  was 
necessary  that  a  special  communication  should 
be  made  to  Peter.  How  unlikely  then  that 
they  should  give  up  the  ancient  membership  of 
infants  in  the  church  without  a  special  direction 
from  the  Saviour  !  How  unlikely  that  they 
should  exclude  infants  from  baptism  when  no 
hint  had  been  given  to  that  effect  by  their  Mas- 
ter !  Proselytes  having  been  always  introdu- 
ced among  the  saints  or  the  professed  people  of 
God  by  the  application  of  the  sign  of  prosely- 
tism  to  both  parents  and  children  ;  how  is  it 
possible  that  they  should  have  invented  the  new 
notion  that  proselytes  could  be  made  to  Christ, 
and  yet  the  sign  of  proselytism  be  applied  only 
to  adults,  when  their  commission  says  nothing 
about  such  a  thing?  As  Jews  then  I  think 
they  must  have  understood,  when  Christ  told 
them  to  baptize  all  nations  as  a  mark  of  their 
being  proselyted  to  his  cause,  that  children 
were  included,  unless  they  had  been  expressly 
excepted.  But  it  is  clear  that  no  such  excep- 
tion was  made.     I  cannot  therefore  avoid  the 


100  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

conclusion  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  intended 
by  this  commission  to  make  baptism  as  exten- 
sive as  circumcision ;  to  apply  it  as  circumcis- 
ion was  applied,  to  those  who  believe  and  to 
their  children.  I  know  it  is  said  that  the  Old 
Testament  church  is  so  different  from  the  New 
that  we  cannot  argue  from  one  to  the  other ; 
but  it  is  said  without  evidence.  Where  is  the 
text  that  authorizes  such  a  declaration  ?  Or 
where  is  the  general  impression  produced  by 
the  current  language  of  scripture  ?  On  the 
contrary,  the  promises  in  the  Old  Testament 
which  are  made  to  Zion  reach  forward  to  gos- 
pel times,  and  call  it  the  same  Zion.  Christ  is 
said  in  the  New  Testament  to  have  come  to 
his  own  when  he  came  to  the  Old  Testament 
church.  Christ  declares  too  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  shall  be  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given 
to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof, 
Christ  and  his  apostles  constantly  appealed  to 
the  Old  Testament  to  show  that  they  introdu- 
ced no  new  religion.  The  apostles  received 
the  Gentiles  into  the  same  church  with  the 
Jews  ;  and  Paul  represents  the  church  as  an 
olive  tree  from  which  the  great  body  of  the 
Jews  were  broken  off  on  account  of  their  un- 
belief, and  the  Gentiles  grafted  in,  and  that  the 
Jews  would  finally  be  grafted  into  the  same 
olive  tree  again.  It  makes  no  material  differ- 
ence with  this  argument  if  we  admit  that  the 
olive  tree  means  Christ ;  for  whatever  it  was, 
it  was  the  same  thing  from  which  the  Jews 
were  broken  off,  into  which  the  Gentiles  were 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  101 

grafted,  and  into  which  the  Jews  will  be  grafted 
again  when  they  believe.  If  the  Jews  were 
broken  off  from  Christ,  what  sort  of  connection 
did  they  have  with  him  inferior  to  a  church 
state  ?  And  if  they  will  be  grafted  in  again 
when  they  believe,  what  church  will  they  be- 
long to  ? 

If  the  Old  Testament  church  were  a  totally 
different  thing  from  the  New,  how  could  any 
of  the  early  christians  have  expected  that  the 
meats  and  drinks  of  the  former  were  to  be  con- 
tinued in  the  latter  ?  The  things  to  be  abolish- 
ed were  carefully  marked ;  that  is,  those  things 
which  pointed  to  a  future  Messiah,  but  not  a 
hint  is  given  that  the  church  does  not  remain 
the  same.  The  Sabbath  and  the  dedication  of 
infants  to  God  by  a  religious  rite  being  founded 
in  the  wants  and  relations  of  men  and  the  im- 
mutable principles  of  God's  government  over 
them,  remain  as  before,  some  external  circum- 
stances only  being  changed.  The  whole  rep- 
resentation of  the  New  Testament  is  such  as  to 
lead  us  to  see  that  Christianity  is  no  new  reli- 
gion, but  a  mere  continuation  and  enlargement 
of  the  old.  If  certain  things  belonging  exclu- 
sively to  the  Mosaic  dispensation  or  the  cove- 
nant of  Sinai  are  abolished,  it  does  not  follow 
that  infant  dedication  to  God  by  a  religious  rite 
and  the  Sabbath  are  abolished — things  which 
existed  before  that  dispensation.  Or  in  the 
words  of  the  apostle,  "  the  covenant  which  was 
confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law, 
that  is,  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  which  was 
9* 


102  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  dis- 
annul, that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none 
effect."  Gal.  iii.  17.  But  we  shall  see  the  ev- 
idence of  our  subject  further  confirmed  when 
we  look 

In  the  third  place  at  the  conduct  and  decla- 
rations of  the  apostles  in  regard  to  it. 

Under  this  head  I  "notice  first  the  baptism  of 
households  recorded  among"  the  acts  of  the 
apostles.  Now  if  the  apostles  understood  their 
commission  as  Jews  naturally  would ;  the  bap- 
tism of  households  perfectly  accords  with  their 
views.  A  man  was  proselyted,  and  then  he 
was  baptized,  and  his  household  precisely  as 
the  ancient  custom  was  among  the  same  sort  of 
people  in  regard  to  the  other  religious  rite 
which  was  introductory  to  the  church.  There 
are  three  households  recorded  as  baptized  by 
the  apostles,  that  of  Lydia,  that  of  the  Jailor, 
and  that  of  Stephanus  ;  quite  as  many  as  could 
be  expected  to  be  recorded  considering  the  very 
brief  history  given  us.  It  cannot  be  proved 
that  the  persons  composing  these  households 
were  all  believers.  The  presumption  is  the 
other  way  ;  for  imimediately  in  the  connection 
of  Lydia's  baptism  with  her  household  it  is  ad- 
ded, "  she  besought  us  oaying,  If  ye  have  judg- 
ed me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord  come  into  my 
'house  and  abide  there."  If  the  whole  of  her 
household  had  been  believers  it  did  not  look 
very  modest  in  her  to  single  herself  out  and 
speak  of  her  own  faithfulness  without  alluding 
to  theirs.     The  language  on  that  supposition 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  103 

seems  to  be  unnatural.  The  declaration  in  the 
last  verse  of  the  chapter,  that  the  apostles  went 
from  the  prison  to  the  house  of  Lydia  and 
found  brethren  there,  does  not  oppose  this  idea, 
but  confirms  it;  for  Luke  was  undoubtedly 
there,  he  being  one  of  the  party  at  first  who 
accepted  the  hospitality  of  Lydia,*  and  the 
same  reason,  at  such  a  time  of  alarm,  must 
have  gathered  others  there  too.  So  that  the 
supposition  that  the  household  of  Lydia  were 
baptized  because  they  were  believers,  w^hen  Ly- 
dia spoke  of  herself  only  as  faithful,  is  alto- 
gether improbable. 

If  any  part  of  the  Jailor's  household  were 
baptized  on  account  of  their  believing,  there  is 
nothing  said  of  it  in  the  record,  but  the  pre- 
sumption is  the  other  way,  because  he  alone  is 
spoken  of  as  believing.  "  He  rejoiced  with  all 
his  house,  he  believing  in  God,"  is  the  precise 
shape  of  the  Greek.  The  phrase  "  with  all  his 
house"  is  the  translation  of  a  single  adverb, 
and  not  of  several  words.  It  signifies  in,  with, 
or  over  all  his  house.  The  account  then  stands 
that  nobody  is  mentioned  as  believing  but  the 
Jailor  himself,  and  yet  it  is  added,  "  he  was 
baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway." 

*  He  gives  an  account  of  the  transaction  in  the  first 
person — "  heard  us," — "she  besought  us," — "she  con- 
strained us," — "we  went  to  prayer," — "followed  Paul 
and  us."  And  then  the  person  is  immediately  changed 
to  the  third  when  the  imprisonment  is  mentioned.  Luke 
and  the  other  brethren  probably  remained  at  the  house 
of  Lydia,  praying. 

In  this  same  company  it  is  probable  that  Timothy 
also  was  found.    See  Acts  xvi.  1—14. 


104  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

It  is  said  by  our  opponents  that  the  decla- 
ration "  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,"  implies 
that  no  infants  were  there  because  infants  were 
incapable  of  understanding  the  word.  Just  see 
now  what  a  false  principle  of  interpretation 
this  is,  by  trying  it  on  some  other  passages. 
The  Psalmist  says  that  the  Israelites  went 
through  the  red  sea  "  on  foot."  Infants  were 
incapable  of  going  on  foot.  Therefore  there 
were  no  infants  among  them.  Luke  says,  "  All 
that  dwelt  at  Lydda  and  Saron  saw  him  and 
turned  to  the  Lord."  Infants  were  incapable 
of  turning  to  the  Lord.  Therefore  there  were 
no  infants  in  that  community.  "  David  dwelt 
with  Achish  at  Gath,  he  and  his  men  every  man 
with  his  household."  Does  this  imply  that 
there  were  no  infants  among  them  ? 

The  other  household,  that  of  Stephanas,  Paul 
mentions  in  an  argument  on  another  subject  as 
all  that  he  baptized  in  Corinth  except  Crispus 
and  Gaius.  Afterwards  he  alludes  to  them  as 
being  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  having  ad- 
dicted themselves  to  the  ministry,  that  is,  the 
service  of  the  saints.  If  this  means  that  they 
were  believers  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  epistle, 
it  surely  does  not  say  that  they  were  such  at 
the  time  they  were  baptized. 

All  these  things  being  so,  how  can  we  under- 
stand the  apostles'  declarations  but  by  resorting 
to  their  habits  of  thinking  and  acting?  The 
question  then  is.  What  would  Jews,  who  had 
always  seen  parents  and  children  connected  in 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  105 

the  concerns  of  religion,  be  likely  to  mean  by 
saying  of  Lydia  "  when  she  was  baptized  and 
her  household ;"  of  the  Jailor  he  "  was  bap- 
tized he  and  all  his  ;"  and  of  Stephanas  that 
his  household  were  baptized,  without  any  ex- 
planatory circumstances  ?  Would  they  mean  a 
different  thing  from  what  all  their  previous  hab- 
its would  lead  them  to  mean  ?  Or  would  they 
convey  the  idea  that  they  acted  in  regard  to  the 
initiatory  rite  of  Christianity  just  as  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  act  in  regard  to  the  initia- 
tory rite  of  the  ancient  dispensation?  They 
speak  of  what  they  did  familiarly  as  something 
customary.  Not  a  hint  is  given  that  the  house- 
holds were  believers ;  but  the  simple  declara- 
tion is  made  that  such  a  one  believed  and  she 
was  baptized  with  her  household,  such  a  one 
believed  and  was  baptized  he  and  all  his,  and 
such  a  man's  household  were  baptized.  Now 
we  know  that  the  apostles  were  familiar  with 
the  Old  Testament  language,  and  that  they  ac- 
tually transferred  it  to  the  New  Testament ; 
that  they  had  been  in  the  habit  of  associating 
parents  and  children  in  the  concerns  of  the 
church,  particularly  in  the  initiatory  rite.  And 
we  do  not  know  that  they  changed  their  phrase- 
ology and  imbibed  an  entire  new  set  of  notions 
in  regard  to  the  connection  of  parents  and 
children  in  religious  observances.  In  these  cir- 
cumstances they  tell  us  that  they  baptized  house- 
holds or  families  when  the  head  of  them  believ- 
ed, without  any  restriction  upon  the  words. 
They  do  not  say  that  they  baptized  these  indi- 


106  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

viduals  and  all  such  of  their  households  as 
believed  ;  but  indefinitely,  and  without  guarding 
against  taking  their  declarations  in  the  common 
acceptation,  that  thej^  baptized  Lydia  and  her 
household,  the  Jailor  and  all  his,  and  the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas.  Now  which  of  the  plans 
of  baptism  does  this  best  accord  to,  the  Bap- 
tist's or  ours  ?  According  to  the  Baptist  plan, 
households  as  such  have  nothing  to  do  with  re- 
ligion, especially  with  Baptism.  They  tell  us 
such  and  such  persons  believed  and  were  bapti- 
zed," not  that  such  a  man  believed  and  he  and 
all  his  were  baptized.  And  their  great  concern 
is  to  explain  away  these  scriptural  accounts  so 
as  to  accord  with  their  scheme.  If  a  missionary 
should  send  home  accounts  of  family  baptisms 
as  unrestricted  as  these,  should  we  not  believe 
that  he  practised  Infant  Baptism  ?  And  would 
not  such  an  account  be  altogether  unprecedent- 
ed and  calculated  to  convey  a  wrong  impression 
in  a  Baptist  missionary  ?  Was  ever  such  an 
account  given  ?  The  argument  then  is  this : 
that  though  these  family  baptisms  mentioned 
by  the  apostles  do  not  of  themselves  alone 
prove  our  views  of  the  subjects  of  baptism  ; 
yet  taken  in  connecion  with  the  known  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles  as  well  as  of  other  Jews  in 
regard  to  circumcision,  and  since  these  state- 
ments are  made  without  the  least  explanation 
to  guard  against  understanding  them  according 
to  the  uniform  usa^e  of  their  nation  ;  the  most 
natural  conclusion  is,  that  they  mean  what  they 
say,  according  to  the  obvious  interpretation  of 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  107 

language,  viz.  that  these  believers  brought  their 
famiHes  to  be  baptized  on  the  ground  of  their 
own  faith,  and  thus  recognized  with  them  among 
the  people  of  God. 

2.  I  am  confirmed  in  this  view  of  the  subject 
by  our  text,  "  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanc- 
tified by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  by  the  husband  :  else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean ;  but  now  are  they  holy."  Here 
is  a  plain  recognition  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  or  else 
there  can  be  no  tolerable  meaning  deciphered 
to  the  passage.  The  children  of  a  believer  are 
here  said  to  be  holy,  and  by  implication,  those 
of  an  unbeliever  to  be  unclean.  What  does 
this  mean  ?  It  surely  cannot  be  moral  holiness 
such  as  regeneration  implies;  for  facts  are  abun- 
dant to  show  that  the  children  of  believers  are 
no  more  holy  in  this  sense  than  others.  Nor 
can  the  children  of  an  unbeliever  be  morally 
unclean,  any  more  than  others,  for  we  are  all 
by  nature  children  of  wrath,  whether  belonging 
to  the  families  of  believers  or  not.  Is  there  any 
way  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  such  words  but 
by  a  resort  to  the  accustomed  phraseology  of 
the  Jews  as  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  ? 
Paul  who  wrote  this  passage  was  a  Jew,  and  he 
transfers  the  Hebrew  sense  to  Greek  words 
abundantly.  Any  one  critically  familiar  with 
his  writings  must  know  that  he  constantly  uses 
Greek  words  in  the  Hebrew  sense,  and  that  the 
corresponding  Hebrew  is  the  only  key  to  his 
meaning.  What  then  is  the  Hebrew  usage  in 
regard  to  these  words  ?     Any  other  principle  of 


108  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

interpretation  will  lead  us  about  in  the  dark  per- 
petually. 

Before  I  show  from  the  scriptures  what  I  es- 
teem the  true  view  of  this  passage,  it  is  proper 
to  give  you  the  Baptist  view  of  it.  Dr.  Gill 
who  is  their  greatest  commentator  and  withal 
a  man  of  considerable  learning  and  talents,  has 
given  us  an  interpretation  which  all  his  breth- 
ren that  I  have  seen,  approve.  From  their 
manner  of  treating  this  text,  I  judge  that  it  is 
one  of  the  hardest  they  have  to  grapple  with. 
Dr.  Gill  gives  the  following  as  his  sense  of  the 
passage  and  would  like  to  have  it  so  transla- 
ted :  "  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  married 
to  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  married 
to  the  husband ;  else  were  your  children  bas- 
tards, but  now  are  they  legitimate."  I  have 
lately  read  Dr.  Gill  with  much  attention,  and 
find  that  he  does  not  attempt  to  show  the  pro- 
priety of  his  translation  and  view  of  the  pass- 
age by  the  scriptural  usage  of  the  words, — the 
only  proper  way  to  show  it.  That  usage  is  con- 
fessedly against  him.  He  resorts  to  certain 
Jewish  rabbies ;  but  the  examples  he  gives  are 
not  conclusive  even  if  their  authority  were  ad- 
mitted ;  for  the  idea  of  sanctification  considered 
in  the  ceremonial  sense,  is  equally  appropriate 
to  them  with  that  of  marriage.  In  support  of 
the  meaning  he  assigns  to  the  words  unclean 
and  holy,  it  is  remarkable  that  he  does  not  at- 
tempt to  bring  one  example,  even  from  Jewish 
rabbies — much  less  from  the  scriptures.  This 
it  appears  to  me,  is  enough  to  show  the  unsound- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  109 

ness  of  his  argument,  and  the  falsity  of  the  no- 
tion maintained  by  it. 

But  let  us  see  for  a  moment  what  absurdities 
accompany  it,  1.  The  apostle  is  made  to  say  that 
the  unbelieving  husband  is  married  to  the  wife 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  married  to  the  hus- 
band— the  very  thing  which  produced  the  diffi- 
culty, which  being  known  by  all,  was  the  very 
point  which  they  wished  to  have  cleared  up  as 
to  its  lawfulness.  They  all  knew  that  they  were 
married;  and  the  question  was,  whether  the 
marriage  should  be  dissolved.  And  besides, 
the  very  idea  of  a  husband  is  that  he  is  marri- 
ed. Our  Baptist  brethren  then  introduce  the 
apostle  before  us  as  saying  that  a  husband  is  a 
married  man,  and  a  wife  is  a  married  woman ! 
a  very  tame  proposition  truly,  and  one  that  does 
not  make  much  advance  in  the  argument.  As 
much  as  to  say,  marriage  is  marriage — a  mere 
identical  proposition.  Does  the  great  apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  in  a  solemn  argument  with  the 
church  of  God,  speak  such  nonsense  ? 

2.  There  is  another  absurdity  to  the  view  we 
are  examining.  If  the  unbelieving  partner's  be- 
ing sanctified  or  married  to  one  that  is  believing 
makes  the  children  legitimate,  both  partners  be- 
ing unbelieving  would  make  the  children  ille- 
gitimate. "  Else  were  your  children  unclean" 
says  the  apostle;  that  is,  if  this  relation  be- 
tween a  believer  and  an  unbeliever  did  not  con- 
stitute some  sort  of  sanctification  in  the  unbe- 
liever, then  your  children  would  be  unclean, 
but  now  are  they  holy.  Is  it  a  scripture  doc- 
10 


110  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

trine  then  that  the  children  of  unbelievers  are 
bastards  ?  that  the  parents  are  not  married  ? 
Our  brethren  will  not  pretend  this.  And  yet 
their  interpretation  of  this  passage  necessarily 
involves  it. 

3.  Dr.  Gill's  representation  of  the  apostle's 
meaning  does  not  meet  the  case.  The  case  is, 
whether  those  christians  who  were  united  to 
heathen  partners  should  separate  as  the  Jews 
did  in  the  time  of  Ezra.  But  those  Jews  were 
truly  married ;  and  yet  the  fact  in  their  case 
was,  that  the  marriage  was  dissolved.  If  the 
heathen  in  Paul's  time  were  not  as  truly  marri- 
ed to  their  christian  partners  as  those  in  Ezra's 
time  were  to  theirs,  there  could  have  been  no 
similarity  in  the  two  cases  upon  which  to  ground 
the  difficulty,  because  no  one  could  doubt  that 
unlawful  connexions  between  the  sexes  should 
be  dissolved. 

For  these  reasons  then  the  Baptist  interpre- 
tation of  this  text  is  to  be  rejected  :  viz.  It  has 
no  authority  in  the  usage  of  scripture,  their 
great  champion  himself  being  judge.  It  is  ne- 
cessarily involved  in  the  absurdity  of  putting  an 
identical  proposition  into  the  mouth  of  the  apos- 
tle, that  is,  that  a  husband  is  married  to  a  wife  ; 
it  makes  the  children  of  parents  who  are  both 
unbelievers,  bastards,  contrary  to  common  sense 
and  not  sanctioned  in  scripture ;  and  it  does  not 
meet  the  case,  for  the  heathen  in  Ezra's  time 
were  married  to  their  believing  partners  as  truly 
as  those  in  Paul's  time,  and  yet  the  former  were 
actually  put  away. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  Ill 

Let  US  come  then  to  the  only  view  of  the  pas- 
sage in  question  which  scripture  sanctions  ;  and 
which,  as  it  appears  to  me,  common  sense,  un- 
warped  by  a  system  which  it  is  committed  to 
support,  does  likewise  sanction. 

In  Hebrew  language,  that  is,  the  language  of 
the  Old  Testament,  there  were  clean  beasts  and 
unclean  beasts.  The  clean  were  such  as  could 
be  eaten,  or  offered  to  God  in  sacrifice ;  the  un- 
clean were  such  as  could  not  be  eaten  or  offer- 
ed to  God  in  sacrifice.  So  also  men  were  said 
in  certain  circumstances  to  be  clean,  and  in  oth- 
ers to  be  unclean.  The  leper  for  example  was 
unclean,  and  not  permitted  to  enter  into  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Lord.  All  the  Gentile  world, 
except  such  as  were  proselyted  and  circumci- 
sed, were  called  unclean ;  and  the  Jews  were 
called  the  holy  seed — clean.  Peter  acting  on 
this  principle  spoke  of  things  common  or  un- 
clean which  had  never  entered  into  his  mouth ; 
and  inferred  thence  that  he  ought  not  to  eat 
with  men  of  another  nation  ;  but  he  was  inform- 
ed that  the  distinction  no  longer  held  in  regard 
to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  as  such — believers  of 
whatever  nation  they  were,  were  clean.  And 
what  is  perhaps  more  decisive  still  for  this  use 
of  the  word,  Paul  when  arguing  against  being 
unequally  yoked  with  unbelievers  (2  Cor.  vi. 
17.)  says,  "Wherefore,  come  out  from  among 
them,  and  be  ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord,  and 
touch  not  the  unclean  thing;"  viz.  the  unbe» 
liever. 


112  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

It  is  clear  then  from  this  exhibition  of  scrip- 
tural phraseology  that  the  words  unclean  and 
holy  as  used  in  our  text,  are  equivalent  to  un- 
clean and  clean.  The  former  were  unfit  to  be 
offered  to  God :  the  latter  were  fit.  Now  on 
this  plain  principle  look  at  the  apostle's  decla- 
ration in  our  text.  The  case  which  led  him  to 
make  it  was  this  :  Several  men  were  found  in 
the  church  having  wives  that  believed  not ;  and 
several  women  having  husbands  that  believed 
not.  When  a  similar  case  was  found  on  the  re- 
turn of  the  Jews  from  the  Bapylonish  captivity 
in  the  time  of  Ezra ;  (ix.  10.)  the  holy  seed  was 
said  to  have  mingled  themselves  with  the  peo- 
ple of  the  lands  ;  and  Ezra  by  divine  authority 
required  the  Jews  to  put  away  their  heathen 
partners  and  also  the  children  that  had  been 
born  in  that  connexion.  Their  children  were 
considered  as  unfit  to  be  circumcised  on  their 
parents'  account  because  they  were  Gentiles — 
unclean.  The  question  then  which  came  up  to 
the  apostle  was,  shall  this  rule  hold  now  ?  Shall 
each  one  separate  from  his  unbelieving  part- 
ner? He  decides  the  question  in  the  negative 
and  assigns  our  text  as  the  reason,  derived  part- 
ly from  the  relation  into  which  the  unbelieving 
partner  was  brought  to  the  other,  and  partly 
from  the  relation  in  which  the  children  of  those 
marriages  stood  to  the  church.  "  For  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  hus- 
band ;  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now 
are  they  holy."     By  the  connexion  which  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  113 

unbelieving  partner  holdt;  with  the  believing, 
he  is  in  some  sense  sanctified;  that  is,  set  apart 
from  unbelievers,  and  does  not  rank  among  the 
heathen  as  completely  as  if  this  connexion  did 
not  exist.  If  this  were  not  the  case,  that  is,  if 
this  sanctification  were  not  true,  then  your  chil- 
dren would  be  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy. 
The  children  of  such  marriages  under  the  an- 
cient dispensation  were  unclean,  not  reckoned 
of  the  holy  seed — unfit  to  be  circumcised,  or  of- 
fered to  God  ;  but  now  they  are  not  so.  They 
are  holy,  that  is,  reckoned  of  the  holy  seed,  and 
therefore  fit  to  be  ofiered  to  God.  As  much  as 
to  say,  If  this  sanctification  of  the  unbelieving 
partner  had  not  been,  we  should  not  have  treat- 
ed your  children  as  belonging  to  the  holy  seed. 
We  should  have  considered  them  as  unclean 
just  as  they  did  in  similar  cases  in  the  time  of 
Ezra.  But  since  we  have  uniformly  treated 
them  as  clean  on  account  of  their  connexion 
with  one  clean  parent,  we  have  shown  by  our 
practice  that  we  esteem  them  clean  ;  and  there- 
fore that  the  unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified  in 
such  a  sense  as  to  make  the  dwelling  together 
of  both  parties  consistent  and  perfectly  proper. 
This  interpretation  of  the  passage  is  in  per- 
fect keeping  with  the  rest  of  scripture  ;  and  it 
goes  upon  the  admitted  principle  that  the  chil- 
dren of  believers  are  to  be  baptized,  because 
they  are  clean,  because  they  belong  to  the  holy 
seed.  No  interpretation  can  be  given  which  is 
in  conformity  to  scriptural  phraseology,  with- 
out going  upon  the  ground  that  the  children  of 
10* 


114  *  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

believers  and  even  of  one  believer,  are  holy  in 
the  sense  explained,  that  is,  clean — fit  to  be  of- 
fered to  God — belonging  to  the  holy  seed. 

It  is  objected  to  this  view  that  the  partner  is 
said  to  be  sanctified,  and  therefore  the  text 
speaks  for  the  partner  as  a  fit  subject  for  bap- 
tism as  much  as  the  children.  To  this  it  is  ob- 
vious to  answer,  that  the  objection  holds  more 
completely  against  the  view  of  our  opponents 
than  against  ours.  For  if  the  text  means  to  as- 
sert the  legitimacy  of  the  children  and  the  law- 
ful marriage  of  the  parents,  the  word  is  equally 
varied  to  accommodate  the  subject  to  which  it 
is  applied.  If  the  word  sanctified  signifies  mar- 
ried, and  the  word  holy  signifies  legitimate, 
these  significations  are  surely  not  the  same. 
The  latter  is  only  a  consequence  of  the  form- 
er. So  also  in  our  interpretation  the  latter  is  a 
consequence  of  the  former,  with  this  additional 
circumstance,  which  goes  entirely  for  us,  that 
both  words  are  made  to  relate  to  the  same  thing; 
varied  only  according  to  the  change  of  subject. 
The  unbelieving  partner  is  sanctified  to  the  oth- 
er so  far  as  fo  render  the  seed,  that  is,  the  chil- 
dren holy,  or  sanctified  in  the  ceremonial  sense 
of  the  word,  that  is,  fit  to  be  offered  to  God.  If 
this  sanctification  were  not,  then  the  children 
would  be  unclean,  but  now  are  they  clean.  If 
then  infant  baptism  was  not  practised  by  the 
apostles,  this  text  is  totally  inexplicable,  and 
stands  an  unmeaning  declaration  in  the  sacred 
records.  If  it  was  practised,  then  this  text  is 
plain  and  perfectly  consistent  with  the  other 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  115 

things  in  their  conduct  already  brought  before 
you  in  this  discourse. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  the  scriptures  teach  the 
doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  not  by  way  of  ex- 
press precept  in  the  New  Testament,  but  by 
way  of  sanctioning  and  taking  for  granted  what 
was  already  in  use,  just  as  they  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  the  christian  sabbath,  and  much  more 
plainly  than  they  teach  the  doctrine  of  fami- 
ly prayera  nd  of  female  communion.*  It  has 
been  shown  from  the  conduct  and  declara- 
tions of  our  Saviour ;  from  the  commission  he 
gave  to  his  apostles  ;  and  from  their  conduct 
and  declarations  under  that  commission.  If 
these  things  carefully  and  candidly  considered, 
are  not  satisfactory  that  Infant  Baptism  is  an 
institution  of  God,  and  pleasing  in  his  sight ; 
then  there  is  no  proof  that  the  first  day  of  the 
week  is  to  be  kept  holy  as  the  christian  sabbath; 
that  females  should  commune  at  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble ;  and  that  the  assemblies  of  the  saints  should 
be  held  for  divine  worship  on  the  sabbath. 

The  subject  is  extensive  ;  and  I  could  easily 
occupy  your  time  in  producing  proof  upon 
proof.  In  the  next  discourse  I  shall  advert  to 
a  few  of  these  additional  thoughts.  Indeed, 
the  more  a  man  gives  his  attention  to  this  sub- 


*  The  subject  of  female  communion  has  not  indeed 
been  particularly  discussed.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say 
that  no  express  precept  is  to  be  found  for  it;  and  no  cer- 
tain example  except  by  way  of  inference.  So  also  of  the 
christian  sabbath  and  family  prayer. 


116  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

ject  in  its  various  relations  to  the  truth  of  God, 
and  the  general  principles  of  divine  revelation  ■ 
and  of  the  divine  institutions,  the  more  firm 
will  be  his  belief  in  the  things  which  I  have 
stated.  •  This  has  been  the  progress  of  my  own 
mind  ;  and  the  same  testimony  is  given  by  all 
others  with  whom  I  have  conversed.  That  In- 
fant Baptism  is  the  appointment  of  God  I  feel 
as  completely  satisfied  as  I  do  that  the  Bible 
itself  is  from  him.  There  have  unquestionably 
been  great  abuses  of  this  ordinance ;  and  that 
perhaps  is  the  reason  why  there  should  be  any 
who  .love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  deny  it. 
For  myself  I  believe  that  Providence  has  suf- 
fered such  a  class  of  men  to  arise  among  his 
real  people  for  the  purpose  of  ultimately  bring- 
ing" the  whole  to  a  correct  use  of  the  ordinance. 
And  lest  this  class  should  become  the  predomi- 
nant part  of  his  church  and  so  defeat  the  object 
by  this  holy  ordinance  going  into  disuse,  he  has 
suffered  them  to  entertain  a  principle  which 
contains  at  once  their  only  life  and  yet  the  seeds 
of  their  dissolution — I  mean  close  communion. 
If  they  keep  this  principle  the  great  body  of 
the  faithful  who  cannot  but  see  it  at  a  glance, 
though  the  subject  we  have  been  discussing 
might  require  more  examination,  will  refuse 
to  join  them :  if  they  give  it  up,  they  lose 
their  distinctive  character  and  soon  become 
merged  in  our  denomination.  The  only  rea- 
son that  opposition  is  kept  up  to  this  ordinance 
is,  that  good  men  with  mistaken  views  have  be- 
come organized  into  a  party  against  it.     When 


INFANT    BAPTISIVI.  117 

this  ceases  the  opposition  will  cease  of  course. 
When  they  mingle  freely  with  others,  and  ha- 
bitually see  the  ordinance  in  its  various  practi- 
cal effects,  they  will  feel  less  opposition  and 
perhaps  gradually  adopt  it. 

I  say  these  things  with  great  kindness  as  my 
individual  opinion,  not  intending  to  reproach 
others  who  differ  from  me,  or  to  diminish  aught 
of  my  christian  affection  for  them.  We  must 
not  quarrel.  We  must  occupy  separate  socie- 
ties, and  for  the  most  part  worship  separately 
till  close  communion  is  abandoned.  And  while 
we  of  liberal  principles  on  this  subject  and  of 
Pedobaptist  views  on  the  other,  remain  firm  to 
the  doctrines  and  usages  we  have  received  of 
Christ;  while  we  bless  the  world  with  the  light 
of  the  gospel  and  gain  sinners  over  to  the  ser- 
vice of  our  great  Master ;  we  must  rejoice  in 
all  the  good  that  our  brethren  may  do.  If  they 
can  reach  some  with  the  obligations  of  the  gos- 
pel whom  we  cannot,  let  them  do  it ;  and  let  us 
rejoice  that  it  can  be  done.  If  any  reproach 
us,  and  say  evil  of  us,  let  us  not  return  railing 
for  railing,  but  contrariwise  blessing.  So  shall 
our  peace  be  as  a  river,  and  our  righteousness 
as  the  waves  of  the  sea. 


118  INFANT    BAPTISM. 


DISCOURSE  IV. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


Rom.  iv.  11. 

"  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  un- 
circumcised." 

Gal.  iii.  17. 

"  And  this  I  iay,  thoA  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  he- 
fore  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  v:hich  was  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect.''^ 

In  the  first  of  these  passages  we  have  cir- 
cumcision mentioned  as  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith  which  Abraham  had  before  he 
was  circumcised  ;  for  the  purpose  of  showing 
the  Jews  that  the  blessedness  of  justification 
could  come  upon  the  uncircumcised.  But  it  is 
distinctly  stated  that  circumcision  was  appoint- 
ed as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.  The 
apostle  then  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham  of  which  circumcision  was 
the  seal,  was  not  merely  a  promise  respecting 
the  land  of  Canaan  for  his  literal  posterity,  but 
that  it  pertained  to  all  believers  whether  Jews 
or  Gentiles.  It  appears  then  that  Abraham  had 
circumcision  as  a  seal  of  a  justification  which 
was  personal  to  him,  and  wihich  respected  him 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


119 


as  standing  in  a  peculiar  relation  to  all  believers 
in  every  age,  of  whatever  nation  tbey  might  be. 

In  the  second  passage  the  apostle  speaks  of 
the  same  subject  more  definitely,  and  argues  at 
length  to  show  that  the  covenant  of  Abraham 
is  a  gracious  covenant,  and  belongs  to  the  chris- 
tian church.  He  declares  that  when  it  was  said 
to  Abraham,  "  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  bless- 
ed," the  gospel  was  preached  to  him ;  and  in- 
fers that  "  they  which  be  of  faith  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham."  This  blessedness  is 
not  according  to  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by 
faith.  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse 
ofthelaw,...  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might 
come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ ; 
that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit 
through  faith.  Brethren,  I  speak  after  the 
manner  of  men  ;  Though  it  be  but  a  man's  co- 
venant, yet  if  it  be  confirmed,  no  man  disan- 
nuleth  or  addeth  thereto.  Now  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He 
saith  not.  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many,  but  as  of 
one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.  And 
this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed 
before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law  which  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul, 
that  it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect. 
For  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no 
more  of  promise  :  but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham 
by  promise." 

Now  it  appears  to  me  that  nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  this.  The  covenant  here  mention- 
ed is  not  the  law,  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  or 


120  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

covenant  of  Sinai ;  for  it  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  older.  It  was  not  disannulled  by 
that  covenant,  but  still  kept  in  force.  It  be- 
longs to  believers  under  the  christian  dispensa- 
tion, because  it  was  of  perpetual  obligation,  and 
was  no  more  connected  with  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation than  with  the  christian.  And  then 
the  concluding  verse  of  the  chapter  sums  up 
the  whole,  thus  :  "  And  if  ye  be  Christ's  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."  Heirs  of  what?  Plainly  of  the 
things  promised  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  We 
have  then  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  was  not 
merely  a  temporal  covenant,  having  respect  to 
the  land  of  Canaan  only,  but  that  it  was  a  spir- 
itual covenant,  having  respect  to  spiritual  things 
to  be  given  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  by  faith. 
Ail  who  are  justified  by  faith  are  justified  as 
Abraham  was  ;  and  to  Abraham  was  given  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  his  faith.  This  sign  was  not  confined 
in  its  application  to  him,  butwas  extended  to 
infants.  It  was  an  essential  part  of  the  sign 
that  it  should  be  so  extended. 

It  appears,  moreover,  from  the  facts  in  the 
case,  that  the  covenant  did  not  signify  that  all 
his  literal  seed  should  be  saved,  nor  that  they 
should  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  neither 
of  these  things  took  place.  It  had  respect  then 
to  a  gracious  economy  under  w'hich  God  would 
place  all  true  believers,  as  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  121 

These  passages  of  scripture  then  -which  I 
have  chosen  for  our  text,  do,  with  their  connec- 
tion, plainly  recognize  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham,  as  a  gracious  covenant,  and  therefore 
as  continuing  in  force  under  the  christian  dis- 
pensation, no  intervention  of  the  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation being  sufficient  to  disannul  it.  What- 
ever ingenuity  may  be  employed  to  explain 
avv'ay  these  things,  they  stand  after  all  in  the 
sacred  record. 

Now  the  covenant  of  Abraham  still  being  in 
force,  has  it  lost  its  seal  without  any  substitute  ? 
And  if  there  is  a  substitute,  what  can  it  be  but 
baptism  ?  And  is  it  to  be  applied  as  it  was,  to 
infants  and  to  such  adults  as  being  born  out  of 
the  covenant,  consent  to  come  into  it  by  believ- 
ing ?  or  is  it  to  be  confined  to  adults  1  Here  is 
a  charter  to  the  church  from  her  great  King, 
containing  a  covenant  or  arrangement  by  which 
certain  things  are  signified,  and  that  covenant 
has  an  external  token  which  is  applied  to  adults 
and  infants.  Various  modifications  of  this 
charter  have  been  made,  but  never  has  it  been 
specified  that  the  application  of  the  seal-  of  the 
covenant  to  infants  should  be  discontinued. 
The  question  then  is,  Has  God's  gracious  cove- 
nant with  the  father  of  the  faithful,  been  nar- 
rovved  down  by  the  gospel  ?  Are  infants  cut 
oflffrom  it  ?  Unless  an  explicit  warrant,  a  plain, 
positive  enactment  can  be  produced  to  this  ef- 
fect, we  take  too  much  upon  ourselves, — more 
than  God  approves,  when  we  venture  to  refuse 
11 


122  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

the  seal  of  the  covenant  to  infants  for  whom  it 
was  appointed  by  Him  who  gave  it. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  explain  the  word 
covenant  as  used  in  scripture.  It  does  not  sig- 
nify as  in  common  conversation  at  the  present 
day,  an  agreement  between  two  parties  ;  but  an 
arrangement,  plan  of  proceeding,  whatever  is 
appointed  and  made  sure,  implying  a  promise. 
Thus  we  are  told  of  God's  covenant  with  man 
and  beast  that  he  would  no  more  destroy  the 
world  bya  deluge.  To  this  was  appointed  a  seal, 
or  token,  viz.  the  rainbow.  So  also  we  are  told 
of  God's  covenant  with  day  and  night.  It  is 
God's  covenant  or  plan  of  proceeding  to  trans- 
mit religion  from  generation  to  generation,  by 
means  of  the  connection  between  parents  and 
children,  and  therefore  to  recognize  them  both 
in  religious  ordinances.  This  plan  of  proceed- 
ing has  an  appropriate  mark,  seal  or  token. 
When  we  make  a  covenant  with  God,  we  enter 
into  the  divine  arranfrement  and  a^ree  to  abide 
by  it.  We  place  the  token  of  it  upon  our  children, 
and  thus  keep  it  in  lively  remembrance.  In  due 
time  it  becomes  a  memento  to  them  also  under 
what  a  gracious  economy  they  are  placed,  and 
what  obligations  they  are  under  to  love  and 
obey  the  Lord  God  of  their  fathers. 

II.  Infant  Baptism  is  rationally  inferred 
from  the  exhortation  of  the  apostles  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every 
one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,     For  the  promise  is 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  123 

Tinto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  of,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  calV 

The  apostles  being  Jews,  and  the  multitude 
being  either  Jews  or  proselytes  from  the  Gen- 
tiles to  the  Jewish  faith,  they  must  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  connection  of  parents  and 
children  in  the  ordinances  of  religion.  The 
covenant  of  Abraham  on  which  circumcision  is 
founded,  runs  thus:  " I  will  be  a  God  to  thee 
and  to  thy  seed  ;"  and  this,  as  we  have  seen 
from  apostolical  authority,  belongs  to  believers 
under  the  gospel.  The  reason  which  Peter 
gives  for  repentance  and  baptism  runs  in  similar 
language,  *'  For  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to 
your  children."  The  former  stands  connected 
with  circumcision  :  the  latter  with  baptism. 
Since  it  is  admitted  that  parents  and  children 
were  included  in  the  first,  what  reason  can  be 
assigned  why  they  are  not  included  in  the  se- 
cond, when  precisely  the  same  phraseology  is 
used?  The  hearers  had  been  accustomed  to 
the  fact  that  parents  and  children  were  received 
into  the  church  for  many  centuries  on  the 
ground  that  the  promise  was  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed.  In  these  circumstances,  Peter  tells 
them  that  the  promise  is  to  them  and  their 
children.  If  he  did  not  mean  to  recognize  the 
connection  of  parents  and  children  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  what  was  the  force  of  adding 
the  word  children  ?  And  especially,  what  was 
its  force  when  addressed  to  Jews  who  would  be 
likely  to  understand  it  in  reference  to  the  usual 


124'  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

practice  of  receiving  children  into  the  church? 
If  the  promise  was  to  parents  only,  or  rather  to 
them  as  individuals  without  reference  to  the  pa- 
rental relation,  why  sa^ntis  to  you  and  to  your 
children  ?  Is  this  the  argument  that  those  use 
who  practice  adult  baptism  only  ?  Do  they 
not  take  a  very  different  course,  and  talk  about 
the  example  of  Christ,  as  an  inducement — a 
thing  never  once  mentioned  in  such  a  connec- 
tion by  an  inspired  writer  ?  What  sort  of  an 
argument  would  it  be  in  the  mouth  of  a  Baptist 
to  persuade  a  multitude  to  be  baptized,  that  the 
promise  is  to  them  and  their  children  ?  It  would 
not  touch  the  case.  It  would  be  foreign  to  the 
subject.  Accordingly  it  is  never  used.  But 
Peter,  taking  a  larger  view  of  the  subject,  and 
bottoming  his  declaration  upon  things  already 
understood,  says,  "  The  promise  is  to  you  and 
to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off, 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
If  then  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, it  must  be  equally  extensive  to  those  that 
are  absent,  viz.  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  to 
as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call.  That 
is,  The  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children, 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off  and  their  children, 
even  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call 
and  their  children. 

Here  then  we  see  that  baptism  is  connected 
with  a  promise.  If  you  ask  then  v/ho  are  to 
be  baptized  ?  The  answer  is,  those  to  whom 
the  promise  is  made.  But  the  promise  is  made 
to   parents   and   children.     Therefore   parents 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  125 

and  children  are  to  be  baptized.  This  seems 
to  me  to  be  a  clear  case  ;  and  just  as  clear  as 
circumstances  and  language  can  make  it.  I  ask 
then,  Does  this  language  of  the  apostle  in  the 
presence  of  Jews,  himself  too  a  Jew,  accus- 
tomed to  the  connection  of  parents  and  chil- 
dren in  the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the  church, 
look  like  giving  up  that  connection,  and  hence- 
forth retaining  none  but  the  parents  ?  If  the 
children  were  required  to  be  believers  in  order 
to  being  qualified  for  baptism,  why  should  he 
mention  them  at  all,  when  by  so  doing  he  would 
certainly  be  likely  to  mislead  such  an  assembly 
as  the  one  he  addressed  ? 

III.  There  is  no  account  of  any  adults  bap- 
tized who  loere  brought  up  as  children  of  be- 
lieving parents.  Timothy  was  such  an  one, 
and  doubtless  there  were  many  others.  Every 
adult  baptism  that  does  not  come  under  this  rule 
is  nothing  to  the  purpose  against  Infant  Bap- 
tism, because  it  accords  as  well  with  our  views 
as  with  those  of  our  opponents. 

IV.  The  saraeness  of  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism in  their  design,  shows  that  they  should  be 
administered  to  the  same  subjects,  unless  there 
be  an  express  direction  to  the  contrary. 

In  regard  to  the  sexes,  that  is,  that  circum- 
cision was  administered  to  males  only  :  we  have 
an  express  warrant  for  embracing  females  in 
baptism.  The  record  says,  "  They  were  bap- 
tized both  men  and  women."  Besides  then  the 
propriety  and  practicability  of  the  thing,  we 
have  the  sanction  of  scripture  to  the  change  so 
11* 


126  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

far  as  this  is  concerned.  If  such  a  sanation 
can  be  produced  for  refusing  baptism  to  infants, 
then  our  opponents  hare  the  truth  on  their  side. 
Inasmuch  then  as  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the 
initiatory  ordinance  of  the  church  which  was 
formerly  confined  to  males,  is  to  be  extended 
to  females  when  adults ;  the  same  reason  au- 
thorises the  same  extension  in  the  case  of  in- 
fants. 

Now  let  us  see  what  the  scripture  says.  Cir- 
cumcision was  the  seal  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham,  "  This  is  my  covenant  which  ye 
shall  keep  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee  ;  every  man  child  among  you  shall 
be  circumcised."  The  covenant  remains,  as 
has  been  shown,  on  the  authority  of  Paul. 
Where  then  is  its  seal,  if  baptism  is  not  ?  I 
have  shov/n  that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  no 
longer  to  be  confined  to  males,  because  God 
has  changed  it.  Is  there  any  change  in  regard 
to  infants  ?  Can  you  produce  such  authority 
on  this  point  as  I  have  produced  on  the  other  ? 
If  you  cannot,  then  it  follows  that  the  seal  must 
be  applied  to  them  as  well  as  to  adults. 

Look  now  at  the  general  representation  of 
scripture  in  regard  to  these  two  rites.  Cir- 
cumcision was  the  initiatory  rite  under  the 
Old  Testament  church.  Not  only  the  children 
of  Abraham  by  natural  descent,  but  proselytes 
from  the  Gentiles  were  circumcised  as  intro- 
ductory to  the  church.  This  is  admitted  on  all 
hands.  Baptism  is  the  initiatory  rite  under  the 
New  Testament    church.     .All  proselytes   to 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  127 

Christianity  were  baptized  by  tlie  apostles  as 
introductory  to  the  church.  This  too  is  admit- 
ted on  all  hands.  Circumcision  was  the  seal  or 
token  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
Abraham  had  :  Baptism  is  a  token  of  the  faith 
which  a  believer  has  now.  This  is  not  denied. 
Circumcision  pointed  to  the  purification  of  the 
heart,  as  for  example,  "  The  Lord  thy  God 
will  circumcise  thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of 
thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul :"  Deut.  xxx. 
ij.  Baptism  points  to  the  purification  of  the 
heart ;  as  where  Peter  says,  it  is  "  not  the  put- 
ting away  of  the  filth  of  the  fiesh,  but  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience  toward  God."  Cir- 
cumcision marked  the  necessity  of  regenera- 
tion :  Baptism  does  the  same. 

Now  all  these  things  are  important,  and  it  is 
proper  that  they  should  be  signified  by  some 
external  rite.  In  the  Old  Testament  church 
such  a  rite  was  had,  viz.  circumcision.  In  the 
New  Testament  church  we  have  all  these  things 
signified  by  baptism,  and  circumcision  is  no 
longer  in  use.  Is  there  any  way  then  of  esca- 
ping \he  conclusion  that  baptism  has,  so  far  as 
these  things  are  concerned,  come  in  the  place 
of  circumcision  ?  Even  a  Baptist  I  think  will 
not  attempt  to  deny  this.  Where  then  is  the 
authority  for  saying  that  baptism  does  not  come 
in  the  place  of  circumcision  in  regard  to  the 
subjects  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied  ?  If  both 
these  religious  rites  signify  precisely  the  same 
thing,  and  one  of  them  is  clearly  appointed  for 


128  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

infants  as  well  as  adults,  why  is  not  the  other? 
If  one  of  then^i  has  taken  the  place  of  the  other 
in  every  religious  respect  except  the  subjects, 
as  is  admitted,  where  is  the  authority  for  this 
exception  ?  Produce  your  warrant.  If  you 
cannot,  then  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that 
the  whole  place  is  occupied  ;  that  not  only  the 
same  general  designs  are  answered  by  both,  but 
the  same  subjects  are  to  be  had,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  females  in  the  case  of  Baptism,  accord- 
ing to  the  express  warrant  from  the  Bible.  If 
baptism  answers  the  same  general  purposes  that 
circumcision  did,  and  circumcision  is  confess- 
edly abolished,  why  should  it  not  be  adminis- 
tered to  the  same  subjects  ?  Nothing  but  the 
authority  of  God  can  make  it  otherwise. 

V.  The  passage  of  the  church  of  God  from 
the  Patriarchal  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation 
made  no  change  in  its  memhers. 

From  Abraham  to  Moses  the  church  consisted 
of  parents  and  children ;  and  from  Moses  to 
Christ  the  same  members  were  had.  In  this 
passage  of  the  church  from  one  dispensation  to 
another,  many  external  changes  took  place. 
Under  the  patriarchs  there  were  no  constituted 
priesthood,  no  tithes,  no  national  form.  Under 
Moses  all  these  things  existed  ;  and  yet  the  ad- 
mission of  infants  to  the  initiatory  rite  was  not 
affected.  They  Vv^ere  admitted  to  this  before 
Moses,  and  so  they  were  after  him.  So  far 
then,  it  appears  that  whatever  changes  took 
place  in  regard  to  the  church,  no  change  in  re- 
gard to  its  members,  or  its  fundamental  princi- 
ples is  to  be  found. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  139 

We  come  then  to  that  dispensation  of  the 
church  in  which  the  priesthood  is  changed,  the 
tithes  and  national  form  abolished.  Is  there 
any  change  now  in  regard  to  members  ?  If 
there  is,  point  out  the  passage  where  it  is  de- 
clared. It  will  not  do  to  talk  of  believers'  bap- 
tism, and  then  infer  that  no  other  baptism  was 
had.  If  you  claim  such  an  essential  alteration, 
you  must  produce  your  authority — your  Thus 
saith  the  Lord.  Since  we  have  already  the 
certain  example  of  the  church  passing  from  one 
dispensation  to  another,  without  a  change  of 
members  ;  who  has  a  right  to  say  that  it  did  not 
pass  to  the  third  dispensation  without  that 
change,  when  God  has  not  told  us  of  such  a 
change  ? 

The  whole  question  then  comes  to  this : 
Where  is  your  proof  that  the  dedication  of  in- 
fants to  God  by  a  religious  rite,  is  abolished  ? 
It  is  not,  where  is  the  command  to  baptize  in- 
fants ;  but  where  is  the  prohibition?  If  infants 
were  dedicated  to  God  by  the  very  rite  which 
marked  proselytes  to  the  faith  ;  and  another 
rite  now  marks  proseh/tes  to  the  faith ;  who 
has  said  that  the  ancient  application  of  the  mark 
of  proselytism  shall  be  abandoned?  No  au- 
thority can  repeal  a  lavv^  but  that  which  enacts  it. 
If  then  infant  dedication  to  God  by  a  religious 
rite  is  not  repealed  by  the  express  authority  of 
God,  it  stands  in  full  force. 

If  you  say  you  can  dedicate  your  infants  to 
God  without  baptizing  them,  you  say  it  without 
authority.     You  do  not  then  dedicate  them  by 


130  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

a  religious  rite.  Just  as  much  can  you  dedicate 
yourself  to  God  without  baptism,  or  without 
naming  the  name  of  Christ.  But  is  this  the 
dedication  which  God  seeks  ?  Is  it  such  as 
he  demands  ?  Is  it  not  setting  up  your  own 
wisdom  above  his  ?  You  have  no  right  to  dis- 
pense with  an  ordinance  of  God's  appointment. 
You  disobey  the  command  of  Christ  if  you  do. 
If  then  you  refuse  to  dedicate  your  little  ones 
to  the  God  whose  you  are  and  whom  you  serve, 
and  thus  acknowledge  his  property  in  them, 
and  the  covenant  he  has  established  with  all  the 
faithful ;  you  disobey  the  express  command  of 
God.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  it  is  not  commanded 
in  the  New  Testament,  so  long  as  we  have  seen 
it  was  commanded  in  the  Old,  and  never  revo- 
ked ;  and  especially,  so  long  as  the  whole  tenor 
of  the  New  Testament  goes  upon  the  principle 
of  sanctioning  it,  as  taken  for  granted.  I  re- 
peat it  then,  the  question  is  not.  Where  is  the 
command  in  the  New  Testament  to  baptize  in- 
fants ;  but  where  is  the  prohibition?  Until  an 
express  prohibition  can  be  made  out,  Infant 
Baptism  will  stand  as  an  ordinance  of  God,  and 
will  be  practised  in  the  church  to  the  edification 
of  believers,  and  to  the  unspeakable  beauty  and 
consistency  of  the  Bible. 

INFERENCE. 

Our  subject  shows  us  that  that  argument 
which  is  addressed  to  ignorance  and  doubt, 
that  if  you  are  immersed  you  will  be  on  the 
safe  side,  is  unsound. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  131 

They  tell  you  that  since  you  acknowledge 
that  immersion  is  baptism,  and  they  do  not  ac- 
knowledge that  sprinkling  is  ;  you  will  be  on 
the  safe  side  at  least,  if  you  go  over  to  them. 
Now  besides  the  sin  of  renouncing  the  baptism 
by  which  you  have  been  set  apart  to  God,  it  ap- 
pears from  our  subject,  that  the  doubts  are  not 
removed  by  such  a  summary  process.  You 
would  violate  one  of  the  solemn  institutions  of 
God.  You  would  refuse  to  follow  Christ  in  his 
institution  of  Infant  Baptism.  So  that  on  the 
supposition  of  your  obeying  one  command,  you 
would  violate  another.  Thus  your  safety  would 
not  be  secured  on  the  principle  of  doubt. 

The  fact  is,  that  such  an  argument  is  of  no 
worth,  because  it  may  be  used  with  as  much 
force  against  the  Baptists  as  against  any  others. 
The  man  who  holds  to  the  exclusive  divine 
right  of  Episcopacy  can  say  to  them,  '  You 
acknowledge  that  our  ordination  is  valid,  but 
we  do  not  that  yours  is.  Come  over  to  us,  and 
you  will  be  on  the  safe  side.'  The  Roman 
Catholic  can  say  to  this  latter  pretender  to  ex- 
clusiveness,  'You  acknowledge  that  our  or- 
dination is  A^alid  but  we  do  not  that  yours  is. 
Come  over  to  us  and  you  will  be  on  the  safe 
side.'  But  there  are  other  things  besides  ordi- 
nation to  which  objections  are  made.  So  in  the 
case  before  us,  there  are  other  things  besides 
the  mode  of  baptism  which  are  to  be  settled. 
A  more  important  question  is,  Who  are  to  be 
baptized  ?  If  Christ  requires  that  ordinance  to 
be  administered  to  believers  and  their  house- 


132  INFANT    BAPTISM. 

hold,  as  I  trust  has  been  shown,  then  even 
though  we  should  be  on  the  safe  side  in  regard 
to  the  mode  of  baptism,  we  should  not  be  in 
regard  to  the  subjects. 

This  method  of  arguing  from  ignorance  and 
doubt  is  not  authorized  either  by  common  sense 
or  by  scripture.  The  question  ;s,  What  is  truth  ? 
And  that  we  should  settle  to  the  best  of  our 
ability,  in  humble  dependence  on  Him  who  is 
the  great  author  and  patron  of  truth.  The  safe 
side  undoubtedly  is,  that  which  God  has  sanc- 
tioned. We  say  to  the  divine  right  Episcopal- 
ian, Show  us  from  the  scriptures  that  ordination 
in  the  way  you  practice  is  the  only  valid  one, 
and  then  we  will  adopt  it.  So  also  we  say  to  the 
Baptist,  Show  us  from  the  scriptures  that  bap- 
tism in  the  way  you  practice  is  the  only  valid 
one  ;  and  that  infants  are  excluded  from  that 
rite,  and  then  we  will  go  over  to  you.  But  this, 
as  we  have  seen  in  these  discourses,  cannot  be 
done.  Therefore,  we  are  on  the  safe  side  to 
continue  as  we  are. 


UTILITY  AND  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE,  &C.  133 

DISCOURSE  V. 


UTILITY   AND    PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE   OF 
INFANT    BAPTISM. 

Ephes.  vi.  1. 

"  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord:  for  this  is 
right:' 

This  epistle  which  is  addressed  to  the  church 
at  Ephesus,  recognizes  children  as  belonging  to 
the  flock  and  under  the  care  of  the  church. 
That  these  are  not  adults,  but  such  as  are  yet  in 
their  pupilage,  appears  from  the  context,  where 
their  parents  are  directed  to  "  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  I 
consider  the  exhortation  of  our  text  as  a  passing 
recognition  of  the  doctrine  that  has  been  pro- 
ved ;  for  it  is  not  addressed  to  heathen  children, 
but  to  the  children  of  the  saints ;  not  to  those 
that  are  unclean,  but  to  those  that  are  holy,  or 
clean. 

It  is  often  asked  by  those  who  have  never 
turned  their  attention  to  this  subject,  Of  what 
use  is  baptism  to  infants  ?  I  answer  in  general, 
just  as  much  as  it  is  to  adults.  The  question 
would  be  as  proper  in  the  one  case  as  in  the 
other.  In  neither  case  is  the  usefulness  of  it 
confined  to  the  moment  in  which  it  is  adminis- 
tered; but  it  is  a  standing  ordinance  signifying 
to  all  who  behold  it,  some  of  the  most  impor- 
13 


134     UTILITY  AND  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

tant  and  practical  things  which  the  Bible  con- 
tains. 

In  the  first  place.  It  is  a  token  of  the  gra- 
cious economy  under  which,  we  are  placed. 

The  child  is  an  immortal  being.  He  is 
brought  into  existence"  by  God,  and  placed  in 
the  circumstances  where  he  is.  If  the  child  of 
religious  parents  he  is  henceforth  to  be  subjected 
to  religious  influence.  It  is  to  be  expected  that 
his  moral  character  will  be  formed  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  gospel.  He  is  brought  in- 
to circumstances  by  his  birth  which  secure  to 
him  the  prayers  and  affections  of  pious  parents 
and  other  christians.  He  is  entered  as  a  schol- 
ar under  Christ's  tuition.  He  is  brought  into 
peculiarly  auspicious  circumstances  to  affect  his 
immortal  well  being.  The  administration  of  a 
rehgious  rite  to  him,  signifies  that  this  is  his 
situation  ;  and  it  surely  signifies  the  truth. 

The  gracious  economy  under  which  God  pla- 
ces us  is,  as  we  saw  in  the  last  discourse,  a  sys- 
tem by  which  he  vouchsafes  to  be  a  God  to  us 
and  to  our  children.  He  establishes  the  plan 
of  perpetuating  the  church  from  generation  to 
generation  by  means  of  the  connection  of  pa- 
rents and  children.  By  circumcision  he  signi- 
fied to  all  the  faithful  of  old  that  he  regarded 
their  little  ones  as  well  as  themselves.  It  is 
acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  part  of  wisdom 
to  look  well  to  the  rising  generation.  On  them 
depend  the  future  prosperity  and  enlargement 
of  the  church.  If  they  are  neglected,  desola- 
tion will  ensue.     If  they  are  properly  attended 


OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  135 

to,  the  happiest  results  will  follow.  God,  by 
the  institution  of  circumcision  under  the  ancient 
economy  and  of  baptism  under  the  new,  pro- 
claims in  language  which  cannot  be  mistaken, 
that  the  children  of  the  church  are  her  hope  and 
her  crown  of  rejoicing ;  and  that  they  must  be 
sacredly  regarded.  It  is  therefore  placing  the 
divine  seal  on  religious  education.  It  is  saying 
to  all  parents,  Train  up  your  children  not  for 
this  world,  but  for  eternity.  Hence  it  becomes 
proper  to  place  upon  them  an  external  sign 
which  shall  hold  up  this  great  practical  doctrine 
to  the  church  in  all  ages  of  its  existence. 

It  is  in  vain  to  say  here  that  all  this  can  be 
had  without  the  ordinance ;  for  it  is  the  design 
of  this  ordinance  to  fix  these  things  in  the  mind. 
It  is  agreeable  to  all  we  know  of  human  nature 
and  of  the  divine  institutions,  that  external  signs 
should  be  had  for  the  teaching  of  important 
practical  principles.  Public  rites  have  always 
been  observed  both  in  civil  and  in  religious  con- 
cerns. It  is  on  this  principle  that  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  instituted,  and  that  the  Passover  was 
instituted.  It  would  be  just  as  forcible  to  allege 
that  the  memory  of  Christ  could  be  preserved 
in  the  church  as  fully  and  practically  without 
the  Lord's  Supper,  or  that  the  memory  of  the 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage  could  have 
been  preserved  as  fully  and  practically  without 
the  Passover,  as  to  allege  that  the  memory  of 
these  important  things  could  be  preserved  and 
practically  felt  without  Infant  Baptism.  The 
fact  is,  if  it  is  important  to  keep  and  act  upon 


136     UTILITY  AND  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

the  principle  that  our  children  are  placed  under 
a  gracious  economy,  and  being  immortal  crea- 
tures, are  to  be  trained  up  under  the  influence 
of  that  rehgion  which  leads  to  heaven  ;  it  is  im- 
portant that  some  external  rite  should  be  had, 
to  remind  us  of  these  things  and  to  fix  them  in 
our  minds. 

II.  Infant  Baptism  is  a  standing  memorial 
of  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit 
of  God. 

If  it  is  a  fact  that  we  are  all  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath  even  as  others ;  it  is  necessa- 
ry for  little  ones  as  well  as  adults  to  undergo  a 
change  of  heart.  If  adult  baptism  only  were 
the  institution  of  God  we  should  have  no  me- 
morial of  the  universal  necessity  of  this  change. 
The  polluted  character  of  our  race  would  not 
be  held  forth  conspicuously  to  the  view.  But 
when  we  find  that  God  ordains  baptism  for  lit- 
tle children,  we  learn  and  feel  that  the  necessi- 
ty of  regeneration  is  the  same  in  all.  We  learn 
that  depravity  is  not  an  accidental  thing,  com- 
ing upon  us  only  after  a  long  time  spent  in  the 
service  of  sin,  but  that  it  belongs  to  the  race  ; 
that  every  one,  as  soon  as  he  acts  morally  at 
all,  acts  wrong.  So  that  if  the  child  has  not 
sinned  as  yet,  he  is  certainly  in  such  circum- 
stances that  he  will  sin  as  soon  as  he  begins 
the  conduct  of  a  moral  agent.  The  necessity 
of  regeneration  then  is  held  forth  by  Infant  Bap- 
tism in  the  most  striking  manner  that  it  can  be 
by  any  external  observance.  Were  baptism 
confined  to  adults  we  should  not  have  this  uni- 


OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  137 

versal  necessity  so  completely  brought  to  view. 
It  would  then  signify  either  that  they  were  ac- 
tually regenerated,  or  that  they  must  be.  It 
cannot  signify  that  they  are,  because  then  in 
many  cases  it  would  signify  a  lie.  It  is  mani- 
fest then  that  the  necessity  of  it  is  signified. 
This  necessity  then  held  forth  in  adults  only, 
would  not  meet  the  case  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the 
Bible.  Hence  the  practical  importance  of  In- 
fant Baptism.  Hence  we  are  taught  so  that  he 
who  runneth  may  read,  that  no  individual  of  the 
race  of  Adam  can  find  acceptance  with  God 
without  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  without  being  made  meet  for  the  inher- 
itance of  the  saints  in  light  by  the  renewing 
grace  of  God.  Is  this  doctrine  then  of  no  prac- 
tical importance  ?  And  since  it  is  true,  is  it  not 
peculiarly  proper  that  it  should  be  impressed 
upon  our  minds  by  the  external  ordinances  of 
the  church? 

III.  It  is  a  remembrancer  to  the  parents  of 
their  duty  to  train  up  their  children  for  God. 

If  this  seal  of  the  covenant  is  applied  to  the 
children  of  believers  ;  and  if  it  signifies  the  gra- 
cious economy  under  which  they  as  sinners  are 
placed ;  it  certainly  does  remind  parents  in  a 
most  solemn,"  interesting,  and  irresistible  man- 
ner, of  the  duties  which  that  economy  involves 
on  their  part.  "  God  established  a  testimony  in 
Jacob,"  says  the  Psalmist,  "  and  appointed  a 
law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fathers, 
that  they  should  make  known  unto  their  chil- 
dren, that  the  generation  to  come  might  know 
12* 


138     UTILITY  AND  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

them,  and  the  children  that  should  be  born,  who 
should  arise  and  declare  them  unto  their  chil- 
dren ;  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God  and 
not  forget  the  works  of  the  Lord,  but  keep  his 
commandments."  The  same  principles  hold 
now,  and  the  same  duties  are  incumbent  on  pa- 
rents. It  is  no  less  the  duty  of  the  christian 
parent  at  this  day  to  command  his  children  and 
his  household  after  him  to  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  than  it  was 
in  the  case  of  Abraham.  And  it  is  now  as  much 
as  ever  the  fact,  that  when  we  bring  up  our  chil- 
dren in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord, 
he  pours  out  his  Spirit  upon  our  seed  and  his 
blessing  on  our  offspring,  and  that  they  spring 
up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water 
courses  ;  one  saying  I  am  the  Lord's  and  anoth- 
er calling  himself  by  the  name  of  Jacob,  and 
another  subscribing  with  his  hand  unto  the  Lord, 
and  surnaming  himself  by  the  name  of  Israel. 
As  Abraham  in  obedience  to  the  command  of 
God  put  upon  his  children  the  token  of  the  cov- 
enant or  gracious  dispensation  under  which  they 
were  placed,  and  thus  had  a  perpetual  remem- 
brancer before  him  that  they  were  separated 
from  the  world  :  so  now  the  mark  of  the  same 
thing  is  put  upon  the  children  of  the  same  cov- 
enant. Thus  the  parent  has  before  him  a  sol- 
emn fact  in  the  history  of  his  children  which 
tells  him  to  be  faithful  to  their  everlasting  in- 
terests, that  they  may  obey  the  commandments 
of  Him  into  whose  name  they  are  baptized.  If 
infants  are  not  baptized,  then  there  is  no  pubHc 


OF   INFANT    BAPTISM.  139 

recognition  of  the  most  important  duty  that  per- 
tains to  parents  in  regard  to  their  children,  viz. 
their  religious  education.  One  of  the  most  in- 
teresting facts  in  the  history  of  the  church,  the 
propagation  of  a  holy  seed,  a  seed  to  serve  the 
Lord,  has  no  ordinance  to  hold  it  up  to  view. 
But  since  our  little  ones  are  baptized,  and  thus 
recognized  as  under  the  care  of  holy  men,  and 
entitled  to  the  treatment  which  that  care  implies, 
we  have  the  wisdom  of  God  displayed  in  a  beau- 
tiful manner.  No  man,  with  the  devout  feel- 
ings of  a  christian  can  bring  his  children  to 
Christ  to  be  called  by  his  name  and  consecrated 
to  him,  without  finding  his  love  of  God  stirred 
up  anew,  and  his  sense  of  the  responsibility  of 
his  situation  as  a  christian  parent,  greatly  en- 
larged. If  these  children  are  now  dedicated  to 
the  Lord  in  whom  I  believe,  how  plainly  am  I 
under  obligation  to  treat  them  accordingly  ? 
They  must  therefore  be  taught  his  statutes  and 
imbued  as  early  as  possible  with  his  religion. 
The  Spirit  of  God  must  be  supplicated  in^heir 
behalf  daily  ;  and  every  means  must  be  used  to 
lead  them  to  act  according  to  the  high  and  bles- 
sed relation  which  they  sustain  to  the  church  of 
God,  the  great  community  of  the  faithful.  If 
at  any  time  I  forget  this  important  lesson,  the 
fact  that  they  are  sealed  Vvith  the  seal  of  the  cov- 
enant will  remind  me  of  it,  and  stir  me  up  to 
new  diligence  in  my  duties  towards  them.  Such 
are  the  reflections  of  a  christian  parent  in  refer- 
ence to  this  holy  ordinance.  And  does  it  not 
then  remind  him  in  a  most  powerful  manner  of 


140    UTILITY  a::d  practical  importance 

his  obligation  to  train  them  up  for  God?  Is  it 
not  a  constant  remembrancer  of  this  obligation  ? 

The  ordinance  then  acts  in  its  influence  upon 
the  parent,  and  through  him,  upon  the  chil- 
dren. They  become  therefore  a  privileged 
race.  They  are  far  more  likely  to  be  made 
heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  high  through 
grace  than  they  otherwise  would  be.  This  or- 
dinance is  God's  public  sanction  put  upon  the 
religious  education  of  children  ;  and  if  it  is  fol- 
lowed out  by  its  appropriate  results,  on  the  part 
of  the  parent,  the  children  become  followers  of 
Christ  indeed  and  in  truth.  They  assume  the 
obligations  of  their  baptism  themselves,  and 
walk  in  the  way  of  the  Lord,  and  at  length  sit 
down  with  their  father  Abraham  and  all  the 
faithful  in  the  joys  of  heaven. 

If  a  man  asks  me  now,  of  what  use  is  baptism 
to  infants,  I  reply,  it  does  all  for  them  that  can 
possibly  be  done.  It  puts  them  under  the  care 
of  holy  men,  and  engages  those  holy  men  to 
teach  them  by  precept  and  example,  all  things 
that  shall  make  them  wise  unto  salvation.  If 
you  say  that  all  this  can  be  done  without  bap- 
tism ;  you  take  the  ground  of  him  who  says, 
'  I  can  be  a  christian  without  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.'  Doubtless  he  can  in  some  spe- 
cial and  solitary  case ;  but  not  ordinarily.  If 
the  wisdom  of  God  is  to  be  approved,  that  wis- 
dom which  has  appointed  external  ordinances 
to  act  upon  the  heart,  and  to  keep  men  in  the 
way  of  their  duty ;  then  a  man  is  more  likely 
to  be  in  that  way  in  the  use  of  those  ordinances 


OF   INFANT    BAPTIS:,T.  141 

than  by  the  neglect  of  them.  This  principle, 
while  it  applies  to  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
equally  applies  to  the  use  of  Infant  Baptism.  I 
do  not  say  that  those  who  from  mistaken  views, 
conscientiously  neglect  this  holy  ordinance, 
never  perform  the  duty  which  it  keeps  in  mind. 
But  this  I  say,  that  both  they  and  w^e  need  all 
the  institutions  of  God  to  impress  upon  our 
minds  the  whole  duty  of  a  christian ;  and  with 
this  institution,  properly  understood,  a  man  is 
more  likely  to  train  up  his  children  for  God  than 
without  it. 

It  is  a  great  privilege  then  to  children  to  be 
placed  under  the  care  of  parents  who  are  bound 
not  only  by  general  considerations,  but  by  the 
solemn  obligations  of  vows  to  God,  to  lead  them 
in  the  way  to  heaven.  It  is  a  great  privilege  to 
have  been  consecrated  by  faith,  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  to  the  God 
of  Abraham.  Such  children  are  not  merely 
given  up  to  God  by  the  prayers  of  the  parent. 
The  prayers  of  the  church  have  ascended  in 
their  behalf,  and  the  seal  of  God's  gracious  cov- 
enant has  been  placed  upon  them.  Is  all  this 
of  no  use  to  the  child?  The  mere  application 
of  water  to  him  can  indeed  do  him  no  good. 
Neither  can  the  same  do  good  to  an  adult.  It 
is  the  thing  signified.  It  is  the  powerful  im.- 
pression  which  is  made  on  the  minds  of  those 
who  have  the  care  of  his  education,  and  the  sol- 
emn consecration  to  the  Lord  God  of  his  fathers 
in  the  ordinance  of  his  own  appointment,  which 
does  him  good  ;  and  w^hich  God  recognizes  and 


143     UTILITY  AND  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE 

blesses.  Whether  the  child  that  dies  in  infancy- 
is  benefitted  by  baptism,  I  do  not  know.  Nor 
do  I  know  that  it  is  not.  It  is  certainly  gratify- 
ing to  the  heart  of  a  parent  that  the  child  has 
been  thus  committed  to  God,  and  consecrated 
to  him  ;  that  the  parent  has  discharged  his  duty. 

IV.  The  fact  that  our  children  are  baptized, 
affords  facilities  of  impressing  religious  truth 
on  their  minds. 

Though  they  may  not  have  been  conscious  at 
the  time  of  their  baptism  of  what  was  done  for 
them;  yet  all  the  lesson  which  it  teaches  can 
be  enforced  upon  them,  not  only  by  oral  in- 
struction, but  by  the  baptism  of  others  which 
they  will  witness.  Consciousness  of  baptism 
at  the  time  of  its  performance,  furnishes  no  les- 
son to  anyone.  It  is  the  reflection  on  the  fact, 
and  the  calm,  collected  observation  of  it  upon 
others  from  which  the  instruction  is  derived. 

Behold  then  a  christian  parent  who  has  dedi- 
cated his  children  to  God  by  baptism,  in  the  act 
of  teaching  them  the  statutes  of  the  Lord. 
*  Consider  my  dear  children,  he  may  say,  under 
what  obligations  you  are  brought  by  your  very 
birth  and  privileges  to  serve  God.  Before  you 
knew  your  right  hand  from  your  left,  I  brought 
you  to  Jesus  Christ  in  whom  I  believe,  and  he 
blessed  you.  The  church  received  you  in  his 
name  because  you  belonged  to  him.  And  I 
promised  before  God  and  the  assembly  of  the 
saints  that  I  would  do  my  part  towards  making 
you  in  deed  and  in  truth  the  seed  of  the  blessed 
of  the   Lord.      You  are   the   children  of  the 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  143 

church  which  Christ  hath  purchased  with  his 
own  blood.  The  seal  of  the  gracious  economy 
under  which  you  are  placed,  has  been  put  upon 
you  ;  and  your  parents  and  other  christians  are 
waiting  to  see  you  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  the 
solemn  and  interesting  relation  in  which  you 
stand  to  Christ,  by  voluntarily  devoting  your- 
selves to  his  service.  Give  your  own  hearts  to 
God,  and  thus  prove  that  you  are  worthy  "  chil- 
dren of  the  kingdom."  And  in  due  time  take 
upon  yourselves  the  responsibility  of  your  bap- 
tism by  naming  the  name  of  Christ  and  depart- 
ing from  all  iniquity.  Do  not  break  away  from 
the  assembly  of  the  faithful  by  which  you  have 
been  recognized.  You  are  a  holy  seed  unto 
God.  See  that  you  act  accordingly.  Know  ye 
the  God  of  your  father,  and  serve  him  with  a 
perfect  heart  and  with  a  willing  mind  ;  for  the 
Lord  searcheth  all  hearts,  and  understandeth  all 
the  imaginations  of  the  thoughts.  If  you  seek 
him,  he  will  be  found  of  you  ;  but  if  you  for- 
sake him,  he  will  cast  you  off  forever.' 

Such  is  a  specimen  of  the  enforcement  which 
Infant  Baptism  can  give  to  religious  instruction 
on  the  minds  of  our  children.  And  is  it  of  no 
importance  ?  Is  it  of  no  benefit  to  them  ?  Does 
not  the  parent  himself,  if  he  walks  in  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  enjoy  facilities  by  it,  of  leading  his 
children  in  the  same  way  ?  Without  this  ordi- 
nance all  this  tender  and  appropriate  instruction 
must  be  lost.  One  of  the  greatest  sanctions 
which  a  parent  can  give  to  his  solemn  and  af- 
fectionate counsel,  is  wanting. 


144     UTILITY    AND    PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

V.  The  ordinan  ce  of  Infant  Baptism  is  grat' 
ifying  to  a  pious  heart. 

God  has  constituted  the  relation  of  parents 
and  children  ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  most  endear- 
ing kind.  Every  parent  ought  to  love  his  chil- 
dren ;  and  no  matter  how  much  he  loves  them, 
provided  be  loves  Christ  better.  Now  if  Christ 
is  dear  to  him,  and  if  he  is  the  object  of  su- 
preme reverence  and  unshaken  confidence  and 
dependence  ;  must  it  not  be  gratifying  to  bring 
the  objects  of  his  tender  care  to  Him,  and  im- 
plore his  blessing  upon  them?  Must  it  not  be 
truly  pleasant  to  mark  those  objects  with  the 
seal  of  God's  covenant,  and  to  put  upon  them 
the  name  of  Christ  himself?  And  can  a  man 
v/ho  feels  the  spirituality  of  his  religion  and  of 
course,  the  importance  of  his  children's  salva- 
tion, fail  of  being  thankful  that  Christ  permits 
him  to  incorporate  those  dear  objects  of  affec- 
tion along  with  himself  in  the  company  of  the 
faithful  ?  For  one  I  confess  I  never  feel  my 
relation  as  a  parent  more  tenderly,  and  more 
like  a  religious  man  than  I  do  when  I  teach  my 
children  the  ways  of  God,  and  pray  for  them 
as  set  apart  from  an  unclean  world  by  baptism. 
Religion  springs  up  in  the  contemplation  of  this 
subject  in  fresh  vigor ;  and  the  wisdom  of  God 
in  appointing  such  an  ordinance,  fills  me  with 
astonishment  and  delight.  This  is  the  way 
that  every  enlightened  christian  parent,  who 
has  not  prejudiced  his  mind  beforehand,  feels 
on  this  subject.  It  is  his  helper  in  the  duties  he 
owes  to  his  children.     It  is  the  sanctifier  of 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  145 

the  parental  relation.  It  connects  this  world 
with  heaven ;  and  opens  the  large  contempla- 
tions of  God's  extensive  covenant  to  the  mind. 
Those  who  reject  Infant  Baptism,  I  cannot  but 
think,  lose  if  they  are  parents,  half  the  comfort 
of  their  religion.  The  cold,  dreary  notion  of 
shutting  out  the  children  from  the  parents' 
privileges,  and  sufiering  them  to  stand  in  no 
relation  to  the  church,  has  something  in  it  so 
forbidding  that  a  man  shrinks  from  it  with  all 
his  heart. 

VI.  Infant  Baptism  is  eminently  agreeable 
to  the  dictates  of  conscience. 

A  plain  reader  of  the  scriptures,  uninfluenced 
by  system,  cannot  but  see  the  connection  every 
where  set  forth  betvv^een  parents  and  children. 
He  cannot  but  see  the  sanctity  which  that  rela- 
tion holds.  "  Children  obey  your  parents  in 
the  Lord,  for  this  is. right ;" — the  language  of  our 
text  is  apparent  every  where  in  the  Bible.  He 
feels  the  relation  to  be  sacred,  and  endearing. 
He  is  called  upon  to  give  up  himself  and  all 
that  he  has  to  God,  as  one  of  the  first  duties  of 
the  gospel.  Shall  his  children  be  kept  back  ? 
As  they  are  rational  and  immortal  beings  like 
himself,  they  cannot  be  given  up  to  God  as  you 
would  give  up  property  or  other  inanimate  ob- 
jects into  his  hands.  They  must  be  treated  ac- 
cording to  the  place  they  occupy  in  the  scale  o^ 
existence.  Something  must  take  place  in  re- 
gard to  them  which  is  calculated  to  impress 
their  minds  and  lead  them  to  a  sanction  of  their 
parents'  surrender  of  them  by  their  own  volun- 
13 


146     UTILITY    AND    PRACTICAL    IMPORTANCE 

tary  act.  What  more  completely  can  do  this 
than  Baptism  ?  Are  they  God's  ?  Then  let 
them  have  his  seal  upon  them.  Are  they  im- 
mortal creatures  who  need  the  renewing  grace 
of  God  ?  Then  let  them  receive  the  mark  of 
such  a  fact,  and  let  us  acknowledge  it  before 
God  and  man.  Are  they  to  be  educated  for 
heaven?  Then  let  them  be  enrolled  in  the 
school  where  alone  such  education  is  to  be  had. 
Conscience  then  feels  satisfied  when  we  bring 
our  children  to  Christ  according  to  his  appoint- 
ment. And  it  is  urged  onward  by  such  an  act 
to  those  after  acts  which  render  the  ordinance 
so  effectual,  and  to  w^hich  God  adds  his  own 
blessing,  even  life  forevermore. 

If  then  Infant  Baptism  is  a  token  of  the  gra- 
cious economy  under  which  we  and  our  children 
are  placed  ;  if  it  is  a  standing  memorial  of  the 
necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  if  it  is  a  remembrancer  to  parents 
of  their  duty  to  train  up  their  children  for  God ; 
if  it  affords  facilities  for  impressing  religious 
truth  on  their  minds  ;  if  it  is  gratifying  to  a  pi- 
ous heart ;  and  if  it  is  eminently  agreeable  to  the 
dictates  of  conscience  :  and  if  all  these  things 
operate  on  the  children  themselves  by  the  ef- 
forts which  their  parents  make ;  who  shall  say 
that  it  is  of  no  use,  nay,  who  can  deny  that  it 
is  of  great  practical  importance  ? 

If  any  who  have  been  baptized  in  their  infan- 
cy, but  who  have  not  yet  given  up  their  hearts 
to  the  God  of  their  fathers,  should  chance  to 
light  upon  these  pages  ;  let  them  solemnly  con- 


OF    INFANT    BAPTISM.  147 

sider  the  relation  they  sustain  to  the  church  of 
God.  You  are  marked  with  the  sign  of  God's 
gracious  covenant.  You  are  solemnly  set  apart 
for  God,  in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment. 
You  are  not  heathen  children,  but  christian 
children  ;  not  unclean,  but  clean.  The  great 
fact  that  you  must  be  born  again  is  held  out  to 
you  by  your  baptism — the  renewing  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  which 
has  been  applied  to  you.  How  important  then, 
and  how  peculiarly  appropriate  in  your  case,  is 
fleeing  to  Christ  immediately  for  salvation.  As 
yet  you  are  not  safe.  As  yet  you  are  without 
hope  and  without  God  in  the  world.  The 
great  thing  which  your  baptism  calls  to  mind 
has  not  yet  taken  place  in  regard  to  you.  Come 
then,  and  acknowledge  the  necessity  of  that 
thing,  and  submit  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with 
all  the  heart.  Baptism  alone  will  save  no  man, 
whether  he  received  it  in  infancy  or  in  adult 
years.  The  obligations  which  baptism  holds 
forth  must  be  voluntarily  assumed,  and  practis- 
ed upon.  What  an  aggravation  will  it  be,  when 
they  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west  and 
the  north  and  the  south  and  sit  down  with 
Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  if  you  who  are  the  children  of  the 
kingdom,  should  be  thrust  out  ? 

You  need  not  trouble  yourselves  to  consider 
whether  your  parents  had  faith  when  they  gave 
you  up  to  God.  As  in  the  case  of  an  adult 
who  discovers  after  his  baptism  that  he  was  not 
a  christian  when  he  was  baptized,  but  does  not, 


148  UTILITY  AND  PRACTICAL  IMPORTANCE,  &C. 

when  he  really  becomes  one,  submit  to  a  repe- 
tition of  the  ordinance :  so  in  your  case,  your 
baptism  becomes  valid,  whether  your  parents 
had  faith  at  the  time  it  was  administered  or  not. 
By  naming  the  name  of  Christ  you  give  your 
own  seal  to  the  baptism  you  have  received,  just 
as  the  adult  does  in  the  case  supposed,  when  he 
returns  to  his  duty.  You  acknowledge  its  ob- 
ligation as  pertaining  to  yourself.  You  take  it 
as  it  were  upon  you  ;  and  therefore  your  faith 
is  accepted,  and  your  baptism,  so  far  as  you  are 
concerned,  is  right.  To  repeat  it  would  be  do- 
ing that  which  God  does  not  require,  and  which 
goes  to  set  aside  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  as 
the  initiatory  rite  of  Christianity,  once  admin- 
istered to  a  given  subject.  "  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  Having  been 
baptized,  if  you  now  believe,  you  are  compre- 
hended in  the  grand  charter  of  salvation  which 
the  Church  has  received  from  her  King.  Be- 
hold now  is  the  accepted  time.  Behold  now  is 
the  day  of  salvation.  To-day  if  ye  will  hear 
his  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts. 


